Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order.)

Order read for consideration of Lords reason for disagreeing to one of the Commons amendments.

To be considered upon Tuesday 19 February at Seven o'clock.

DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 28 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Mackerel Catches (Carrick Roads, Falmouth)

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many officials in his Department are employed in the monitoring of mackerel catches in the Carrick Roads near Falmouth.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Eight officials from my Department are stationed at Falmouth and are involved in monitoring mackerel transhipments there. Six other officials stationed in the South-West and also headquarters staff are engaged in checks on the documentation relating to transhipments.

Mr. Penhaligon: How can the Minister believe that eight people can accurately monitor the transhipments between 30

factory boats and more than 150 fishing boats in Cornwall, when often there is only one person one duty? Will he introduce a "report ship" system, whereby ships have to report and have their catch certified before it can be passed to the factory boats?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept that it is important that the reporting of catches and our monitoring of them is effective. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, with the resources available to us, we endeavour to keep as effective a check as possible. There is some concern over the accuracy of the figures. We have made investigations and are tightening up many of the procedures.

Mr. Peter Mills: Does my hon. Friend agree that, because of the problems of fishing in the South-West as a whole, it might be a good idea to institute a departmental review on the size of boats, catches, and where the boats come from? Will he do that to ensure that our stocks will not continue to be depleted?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is a matter that gives me considerable cause for concern, because mackerel fishing is our largest single fishery. I spent several days in the South-West at the end of last year. I assure my hon. Friend that both through the efforts of my Department and the considerable efforts of the Royal Navy—to whom I pay tribute—we shall endeavour to ensure that our supervision is as strict and as tight as possible.

Mr. Mason: Is the Minister not aware that he introduced a licensing scheme for mackerel fishing? In the wake of the mad scramble that took place, the over-fishing, the friction between fleets from the South-West and Scotland, and the operations of the Klondikers, may I ask whether that scheme succeeded? What lessons has he learnt from it?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should take notice of the steps that we have taken in that direction. The previous Government had a licence scheme. We have announced that we intend to introduce one of a restrictive nature that would give us far more control over the mackerel fishing fleets than has existed in the past. We are discussing the matter with the industry and hope to introduce the scheme later this year.

Mr. Hicks: Does my hon Friend acknowledge that, when he introduces that scheme during the next mackerel fishing season—based on the number of boats that will be allowed to operate—the success or failure of that scheme will depend solely upon greater supervision and monitoring?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I acknowledge that.

Sheep Industry

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the state of the sheep industry in England; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): I am naturally concerned at the difficulties the sheep industry has faced in recent months because of low market prices, resulting in part from the exceptionally late pattern of marketing last year, but also from the continued failure of the French Government to lift their illegal controls on imports from the United Kingdom. Sheep producers' returns have, however, been protected by payments under the fat sheep guarantee scheme and increases in the hill farm subsidies. The longer term prospects for the sheep industry are good.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the Minister's faith in the future of the sheep industry is borne out. Will he give a guarantee to the sheep producers that the deficiency payments scheme that has applied for so many years will continue and will not be changed? Will he tell us what progress has been made on the export of fat lamb into France?

Mr. Walker: Subject to any ultimate agreement on a sheep meat regime in Europe that might take the place of any scheme that we have in Britain, we shall maintain a system of subsidy along the present lines.
As to our position with France, the final day for the French answering the Commission's case is, I think, today. Therefore, I hope that within the next few days, the Commission will take out the appropriate interim measures of the court against the French Government.

Mr. Myles: Does my right hon. Friend have any glimmer of hope at all for the

prospect of an agreement on an EEC common sheep regime which will be acceptable to our sheep farmers?

Mr. Walker: So long as the French Government continue to insist upon a system of intervention, I see no chance at all.

Mr. Jay: Is there any point in our remaining members or an organisation in which we keep the rules and the French do not?

Mr. Walker: No. Sir—but there is every point in the French keeping the rules.

National Farmers Union

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when next he will meet the president of the National Farmers Union.

Mr. Peter Walker: I shall be meeting the president of the National Farmers Union on 25 February.

Mr. Morrison: While sympathising with the problems that farmers face arising from inflation, cost increases and high interest rates, will my right hon. Friend nevertheless remind the president of the three green pound devaluations that have been achieved by the Government since they came in power and of the consequent improved ability of farmers to compete on the same level as their counterparts in Europe? Will he also reassure the president, particularly in the light of his speech at the annual meeting this week, that it remains the Government's intention to live up to their manifesto commitments?

Mr. Walker: Yes. We also came into office on a promise to eliminate the negative MCAs, which discriminated against British farming, within the lifetime of this Parliament. To have achieved that in nine months gives British farming an opportunity which it enjoyed at no time during the period of the previous Government.

Mr. Foulkes: When the Secretary of State meets the president of the NFU will he explain why he, and many of his colleagues who represent rural areas, did not follow their courageous colleagues into the Lobby with us last night to protect the interests of children in rural


areas, as was suggested to us by the NFU?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I shall explain that to him.

Mr. Geraint Howells: What representations has the Minister received from the president of the NFU and the president of the Wales National farmers union regarding the current proposals for beef cow subsidy?

Mr. Walker: So far as I can remember, I have not received any direct communication. However, I find it extraordinary that the Commission should come forward with a proposal for a beef cow subsidy which will limit the number of cows which will benefit to 15. That proposal would positively discriminate against the benefits which Britain could enjoy. Here was one subsidy through which we could have obtained a net benefit, as Britain has 27 per cent. of the European herd. But, by the nature of the proposals, it will be a net deficit.

Mr. Forman: My right hon. Friend is also responsible for food. When he next meets the president of the NFU, will he discuss with him questions relating to the impact of agricultural policy upon the nation's food policy, and diatetics in particular?

Mr. Walker: I am pleased to say that at the present time the relationships that exist between the food manufacturing and processing industries and the NFU, which represents the producers, have become very much closer. They are now working much more closely together.

Mr. Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that the EEC Commission's proposal to end the beef slaughter premium will not only lead to more beef in intervention and higher prices for the consumer, but to less security for our own beef producers? Will he make it clear to the president of the NFU that he has no intention of allowing that beef premium to end?

Mr. Walker: I certainly have no intention of allowing that to end unless there is a better scheme, which meets the principles which the hon. Gentleman has suggested, to put in its place. Certainly, in their present form, the Commission's proposals for a beef cow subsidy would

not meet that criterion. Until that scheme meets the criteria, we shall stick to the beef premium scheme.

Urban Wasteland (Re-conversion)

Mr. Anthony Grant: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will initiate an inquiry into the possible conversion back to agricultural use of wasteland in and around urban areas; and what representations he has received from the National Farmers Union or others on this matter.

Mr. Thompson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will initiate an inquiry into the possible conversion back to agricultural use wasteland in and around urban areas; and what representations he has received from the National Farmers' Union or others on this matter.

Mr. Steen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will initiate an inquiry into the possible conversion back to agricultural use of wasteland in and around urban areas; and if he has received representations from the National Farmers Union or others on this matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): Land in urban areas is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I would, however, be glad to hear of any opportunities to return such land to agricultural production. Land around urban areas is the subject of the Countryside Commission's proposed urban fringe experiment at St. Helens Knowsley. This would be supported by my Department. No starting date for this experiment has yet been fixed.

Mr. Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is the first time that I have ever asked a question of his Department? I do so because of the immense importance of the subject. Is he aware that there is a vast amount of wasted land in the hands of public corporations in all urban areas, not least Harrow, which could well be used for horticultural purposes, even though it may not be suitable for agricultural use? Will he or his colleagues in Government cause this inquiry


to extend beyond the boundaries of St. Helens and to look at the country as a whole?

Mr. Wiggin: I welcome my hon. Friend to agricultural questions, because I know that he has at least one farm in his constituency. He has made an important point. A vast acreage of land lies just outside built-up areas, which is not fit for agriculture and has not yet been developed. The purpose of the Countryside Commission's experiment is to look at this and to see what can be done about it. I believe that it is right to start with an experiment before going any further.

Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he realise that in my constituency and others a great deal of this land is available? Will he do what he can to help the NFU to purchase that land, so that it can recover the land and rent it or sell it to its own members?

Mr. Wiggin: I am not aware that the NFU has made any proposals to purchase this land. I rather doubt that it is so funded. But it has said that it will support the experiment and that it supports the philosophy behind it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Steen: Surely the Minister agrees that it is far better to grow crops and vegetables, and to graze cows, on some of the 250,000 acres of dormant and derelict land in the inner areas of our great towns rather than allow them to remain idle in perpetuity. Is he aware that that would be a great source of job creation?

Mr. Wiggin: I know that my Department would look forward to assisting in anyway it could in such endeavours. However, my hon. Friend will appreciate that he is talking about privately-owned land. If developers believe that they can do better out of farming it rather than developing it, we shall seek to assist.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the Minister aware that it is possible to grow potatoes quite easily on that derelict land? Those potatoes could be used for making fuel for vehicles—not vodka—and the mashed potato that is left could be fed to the

cattle. Does he agree that that would also help our energy problem?

Mr. Wiggin: I am sure that the owners of those 250,000 acres will listen with care to what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to what occurs when, under public expenditure cuts, some new town corporations cut back the area of land that they require for development? Will he encourage them to remove development zoning so that such land can again become agricultural land?

Mr. Wiggin: This is a matter for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are in close touch with him about it. The whole venture of seeking to save agricultural land is a co-operative one, and must be between at least two Departments if not more.

Mr. Charles Morrison: While I appreciate the need to use derelict urban land either for agriculture or development, does not my hon. Friend agree that it is even more important to reduce the annual loss of agricultural land—which is currently at a level of between 50,000 and 75,000 acres a year—in particular by making better use of derelict urban land?

Mr. Wiggin: It is a fundamental point that every acre of land which is redeveloped is one acre of new land which does not have to be developed. Indeed, that has formed the basis of discussions between officials and Ministers of our two Departments. Not only do we seek to save land but we also seek to increase the quality of life in the inner cities. Therefore, there is a good objective from both points of view.

Lamb

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the curent state of the negotiations concerning lamb imports from the United Kingdom into France.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Commission has started further legal proceedings against the French Government for their failure to comply with the court's ruling, and I am pressing the Commission to


apply for an immediate interim injunction against the French measures.

Mr. Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend recall that it is now six months since the European. Court gave its decision? Is he aware that the patience of sheepmeat producers in Britain has been sorely tried? Will he keep pushing the European Commission so that it wastes not one hour in laying that interim injunction on the French, should the answers not be satisfactory? Will he make certain that the discussions concerning the ban do not form part of the price negotiations this year?

Mr. Walker: I cannot guarantee that other countries will not endeavour to make those discussions form part of the price negotiations. The United Kingdom Government will not treat them as part of the price negotiations, but as a matter of legality or illegality. The final reply of the French Government should be received today, but on the assumption that it is unsatisfactory, after over five months' delay that has taken place, it would be wrong if the Commission did not seek the interim injunction procedure.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that it is now almost too late for a large number of our sheep producers, particularly in the uplands? Is he considering any retaliatory measures against the French?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I do not believe that it is a correct procedure that, if one country is failing to comply with the law, other countries should follow that example. The French negotiating position on a range of other topics is adversely affected by their present posture.

Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend able to confirm the documentary evidence from the Commission's legal services department that France has not only been flouting the Community law but is the worst offender throughout Europe? Will he use this against the French Minister whenever there is an argument against our fishing industry?

Mr. Walker: It is not a case of who is worst. The French Government are the only Government in the history of the Community to have acted against a decision of the European Court.

Mr. Donald Stewart: What will happen to the French if they are found guilty of infringing the rules?

Mr. Walker: They have been found guilty. The Commission does not have the power to force penalty payments. However, power exists within the Council of Ministers, and if a Government continue to disregard the rules of the club, they should start to lose some of the benefits.

European Community (Council of Agriculture Ministers)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he expects to meet his EEC counterparts.

Mr. Parry: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet the EEC Council of Agriculture Ministers.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he intends to meet the council of Agriculture Ministers of the EEC.

Mr. Straw: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he will meet his EEC counterparts.

Mr. Peter Walker: At the next Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting, to be held on 18 February.

Mr. Dormand: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the EEC Ministers that Britain cannot tolerate any longer the absurdities of the CAP? In particular, will he do his utmost—I realise that there are limitations—to prevent the export to East European countries of cheap surplus Common Market produce? Will he take the first steps towards withdrawing Britain from CAP, particularly in view of recent reports that that is the right hon. Gentleman's view?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. It is an important matter. The Commission, in making its special levy proposals on milk, has for the first time adopted a system of special national financing, in practice, for the additional surpluses. That is an important breakthrough in principle and it is a principle which I believe should be pursued further if sanity is to be introduced into the CAP. As for exports of


subsidised food to the Soviet Union, certainly the British Government will vote against all such measures or proposals.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first the three hon. Members whose questions are linked with this question.

Mr. Parry: Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will maintain their traditional principle of support of the Lomé convention, and of the import and consumption of 1·25 million tonnes of ACP sugar? When he meets his EEC counterparts, will he also support the principle of the EEC joining the international sugar agreement? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those measures will lift up the hearts and heads of 1,700 workers at the Tate and Lyle refinery in Liverpool.

Mr. Walker: The answer to both questions is "Yes, Sir".

Mr. Flannery: In view of the intensity of feeling throughout the country about the vast amount of money that Britain pays to the Common Market, and in view of what the Prime Minister said that she would do at Dublin, is it not time for the Minister, when he meets the other EEC Ministers, to make it plain that Britain will not tolerate the fatuities that are taking place? Will he convey to them that they should do something and not allow the French, in addition to taking British money, to thumb their noses at us? Will he also convey to them that there is deep feeling in Britain that we should get out of the Common Market because of all this nonsense?

Mr. Walker: I have already conveyed to them that respect for the Community is very much undermined when other countries seem to violate the laws of the Community. The Government have made clear the general injustice of the British position in terms of money and the CAP. A grievance exists, and that must be redressed if the Community is to have any proper spirit.

Mr. Straw: Will the Minister accept that disruption to ACP producers caused by EEC sugar surpluses over the past four years is, ironically, one of the reasons for the present shortage of sugar? Will he agree that it would be wrong for our EEC partners to use the high price of

sugar on the world sugar markets as the excuse for justifying a further increase in the beet sugar price?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. The Commission proposes to reduce total beet production in the Community. We support that in principle. We do not support the detailed package because it discriminates unfairly against the British grower. We would support a reduction in beet production in Europe, provided that it was fairly administered.

Mr. Body: Will my right hon. Friend give a clear and firm assurance to the House, and therefore to the taxpayers, that when he meets his counterparts he will veto any increase in prices for those commodities that are structurally in surplus?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Lyell: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will do all that he can to ensure that British sugar producers get a better share of the quota than that currently proposed? Is he aware that the current proposal is 29 per cent. down on last year, whereas other EEC countries have more generous quotas?

Mr. Walker: The first proposals of the Commission were unfair to Britain. I am glad to say that there has been an improvement on that. The improvement is nowhere near good enough. Before I agree to any proposals, a further improvement will be required.

Mr. Torney: In view of the reports from Europe that it is the intention not to export any more surplus French butter to the Soviet Union, will the Minister try to find out, when he meets his counterparts, which country the British taxpayer will be expected to subsidise through the exports of the French butter surplus? Does he not think that it is now time for Britain to act unilaterally, and to refuse to subsidise any more of the French surplus?

Mr. Walker: The principle that I outlined in reply to an earlier question—that the time has come to move towards the national financing of the disposal of surpluses, instead of their being subsidised by those countries which do not produce surpluses—is a principle which we shall advocate.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to convey to his European counterparts the bitter resentment that is felt by glasshouse producers and horticulturists about the hidden subsidies paid to Dutch growers by the Dutch Government? Will he also bear in mind that the unfair dumping of Dutch produce on the British market is causing concern to our horticulturists?

Mr. Walker: I recognise the concern among British horticulturists about the cheaper energy that is available in Holland. However, there is no evidence that the Dutch Government are providing subsidised fuel supplies to their growers. They are giving cheap supplies, but at a commercially profitable rate. We cannot accuse the Dutch of using unfair trading methods.

Mr. Dalyell: Ethyl alcohol?

Mr. Walker: At the next meeting, I hope.

Potato Marketing Board

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when next he intends to meet the Chairman of the Potato Marketing Board.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend will be meeting the chairman of the Potato Marketing Board on 25 February.

Mr. Brown: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Potato Marketing Board on that date will he give him some indication as to what the guaranteed price for potatoes will be? Will he also confirm that, in the event of no EEC regulation being agreed by 1 May of this year, the Agriculture Act 1957 guarantee will apply?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is no question but that we must have asuitable arrangement for potatoes that includes a means of stabilisation. The National Farmers Union and the Potato Marketing Board are in discussion on this, and we are discussing it with them. In the absence of an EEC regime, we shall take note of the points that my hon. Friend has made.

Cows (Milk Yield)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the average milk yield was

of each milking cow in the EEC (a) in 1973, and (b) at the latest date for which information is available.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In 1973 the average milk yield per cow throughout the Community was 3,582 kilogrammes, or 765 gallons. In 1977, the last year for which complete information is available, the comparable figure was 3,846 kilogrammes, or 822 gallons.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Bearing those figures in mind and appreciating that the point has been touched on by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in answer to an earlier question, do I understand the Government's position to be that they are not prepared to tolerate any discriminatory proposals and measures of the Commission with regard to United Kingdom milk production?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Last year at the price fixing, we resisted absolutely any measures that would discriminate against our producers. The Commission has come forward with proposals which again would discriminate against British milk producers. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall fight equally strongly this year.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister confirm that the cost of each of those Continental Community cows will next year run at the rate of 45 deutschemarks per month, 25 French francs per week, or £1 every two and a half days? Will he recognise that that is not in the national interest?
Will he run the risk of incurring the displeasure of the Conservative members of the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament, who may well endorse this absurd arrangement?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad to note that the hon. Member's knowledge of international currencies is as good as my knowledge of the metric system. We acknowledge that one of the biggest problems in the EEC is that of the milk surplus. It is absolute and total nonsense to say that a major part, not only of the agriculture budget, but of the total EEC budget should be taken up in relation to this. We shall be supporting all sensible measures that do not discriminate against our industry. We shall try to contain and reduce that surplus.

Mr. Strang: Will the Minister of State agree that it is absolutely grotesque that


each of the 25 million cows in the Community should have cost the taxpayer over £100 a head last year? Will he further agree that it is absolutely imperative to have a complete freeze on the price of milk as long as it is in surplus, and that effective non-discriminatory measures should be taken at the next price fixing, to end the surplus at long last?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The use of the word "grotesque" comes ill from the hon. Gentleman. If anything was grotesque, it was the efforts of his Government and his right hon. Friend, the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), the former Minister of Agriculture and himself when they were conducting these affairs. I remind the hon. Gentleman that at the last price fixing we achieved the lowest level of price increases that there has been.

Urban Wasteland (Re-conversion)

Mr. Bevan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of green field land per year are being built over; and how much land in urban areas is being re-converted from wasteland back to agricultural land.

Mr. Wiggin: The average loss of agricultural land to development in England and Wales is about 17,000 hectares—or 41,000 acres—per annum. About 3,000 hectares—or 7,500 acres—of unused or restored land are returned to agricultural use each year, although I must say that this figure is not very precise.

Mr. Bevan: Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture examine with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the scope to return wasteland in and around urban areas to agricultural use at agricultural prices, with full tenancies, on which some agricultural properties can be built?

Mr. Wiggin: As I told the House a few minutes ago, I think that the best chance of succeeding is in the areas around the urban areas rather than inside them. Here the Department of the Environment, in conjunction with the Countryside Commission, is proposing an experiment to see whether this damaging trend towards blighting land can be reversed.

Mr. Newens: Will the Minister take a very good look at the position at Stansted, where a large area of good agricultural land is likely to be taken over for the use of an airport? Should we not endeavour to see that this consideration of preserving agricultural land is borne in mind in these matters? Ought we not also to examine the loss of land by the seashore? The Ministry does not even keep figures as to how much is eroded each year.

Mr. Wiggin: It is inevitable that, wherever the third London airport might be sited, there would be substantial loss of agricultural land. The overall national interest has to be considered. However, the hon. Gentleman can be certain that the priorities with regard to agricultural land were considered by the Government. The question of seashore erosion is a difficult one, because in most cases it is natural and has been going on for a very long time. If the hon. Gentleman has any special cases to draw to my attention, I shall be happy to look into them.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Beith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is now satisfied with the state of the fishing industry.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The United Kingdom fishing industry faces many problems. We shall continue to work closely with the industry.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister think that the industry can survive at the same time as we have the high cost of fuel, subsidised competition, cheap imports of processed fish, and the uncertainties of the common fisheries policy? Will he follow up the speech made by the Secretary of State for Scotland with some action to help the industry?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The industry is faced with particular financial difficulties at the present time, for a host of different reasons. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we shall no doubt be discussing them in a debate later this afternoon. The industry has put to us a number of proposals. We are in discussion with it and shall certainly consider the proposal that it is making.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the fishing industry of Norway facing similar problems, and has the Minister any evidence that the Norwegian fishermen regret not being members of the EEC?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Norwegian industry faces many difficulties and many problems. Indeed, the Norwegian Government have to pay for ships to be laid up. Whether their problems are greater or less than ours, I do not know, but they certainly have very great problems.

Mr. Sproat: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what has emerged from the inquiries that he instituted, through our embassies in the EEC countries, into the subsidies that EEC countries are making to their fishing fleets? In particular, can he tell us whether he has any precise information as to the extent to which the French Government are subsidising fuel to their fishing industry?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend hopes to refer to this later on this afternoon, when we debate the EEC documents.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the Minister satisfied with the state of the deep-sea fleet in Hull where, because we cannot get our ships to sea, owners are now selling those boats to pay their short-term dues on the clock, where the boats just lie at anchor? Has he any plans to meet this problem, or any thoughts for the future?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As hon. Members know, last week I met deputations from Hull, and from Grimsby, where there are also difficulties. There are proposals from the industry that we are considering at the present time.

European Community (Council of Agriculture Ministers)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will make a statement concerning the likely business at the forthcoming meeting of EEC Agriculture Ministers on 18 and 19 February.

Mr. Peter Walker: I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 31 January about the main subjects that might be discussed by Ministers of

the European Community during February.

Mr. Spearing: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not give a list of the business. Will he confirm that one of the items to be discussed will be the CAP price proposals for 1980–81? In view of the fact that the disposal of surplus milk products on the world market is likely to cost the Common Market about £3,000 million in the current year, and bearing in mind our contribution to that, does he not think that we should withhold our contribution to that scandalous total?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir.

Mr. Leighton: Will the Minister convey to his EEC counterparts the official decision of the National Farmers Union, printed in The Times yesterday, that Britain should withdraw from the EEC's common agricultural policy?

Mr. Walker: As far as I know, certain individuals put that point of view, and the president of the National Farmers Union repudiated it.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the Minister, when he meets his colleagues, convey to them the view that, despite the unthinking nationalism that appears to grip many hon. Members, the solutions to the problems of the agricultural community in Europe do not lie along the path of recrimination and reprisal?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir, I agree with that. Nor do the solutions run along the path of perpetuating current errors.

Sugar Beet

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the sugar beet quotas for United Kingdom growers.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We have had representations including those from British Sugar Corporation Ltd., Tate and Lyle Ltd., the National Farmers Union, the trades unions representing workers in both sugar beet processing and the cane sugar refineries, associations representing sugar-using industries and from the Shropshire county council.

Mr. Miller: As two of the Ministers on the Government Front Bench are


aware of the concern in the West Midlands about the future of the two beet processing factories there, would my hon. Friend care to spell out again this afternoon exactly what the Government intend to do to protect our sugar production in view of the fact that we are not responsible for the surplus in the EEC?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure my hon. Friend that there are three Ministers on the Government Front Bench who are concerned about the problems of sugar beet, not only in the Midlands but in other sugar beet growing areas of the United Kingdom. I repeat that the proposals put forward by the Commission are unsatisfactory because they discriminate against the efficiency of our producers and our industry. We shall certainly be opposing them resolutely in the course of the discussion on them.

Mr. Parry: Will the Minister advise the House on whether his right hon. Friend intends to meet the trade unions representing workers at port refineries? He has not met them yet, although several of his immediate predecessors have.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have met them twice, most recently within the last few weeks.

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend be a little firmer than he was a moment ago and say that the proposals are totally unacceptable in any circumstances?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cryer: In view of the continuing criticisms of the EEC sugar quotas and other EEC matters, will the Minister recognise that these criticisms were put forward by some of us even before the referendum on the common market? What contingency plans does the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have against the continual refusal of the EEC to accept our repeated representations?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Some criticisms such as those from the hon. Gentleman, are destructive, and others are constructive. In the wider interests of Europe, we believe that we are much more likely to achieve success in negotiations if we criticise constructively, not destructively.

Untreated Milk

Mr. Knox: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has now reached a decision about the proposed ban on sales of untreated milk.

Mr. Peter Walker: I hope to do so within a month.

Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that to confirm the decision of the previous Government in this matter would be damaging to the livelihood of many farmers in constituencies such as mine? Does he agree that the health inspectors already ensure a high standard of hygiene and that no further action is necessary?

Mr. Walker: I am aware that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot anticipate my final decision, but I understand the problems that the decision of the previous Government would cause in his constituency and many other areas in England and Wales.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is Conservative policy to allow freedom in these matters and that, as long as the bottle is clearly marked as containing untreated milk, it should be available? If it is banned, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there will be considerable problems regarding milk distribution in rural areas?

Mr. Walker: I understand the views of my hon. Friend. I know about his knowledge of the problem in the locality that he represents. Certainly I think it is important to study the strong representations that are made as to the effect and impact of the decision by the previous Government, if it were continued.

USSR (Surplus European Community Produce)

Mr. Jay: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what subsidised foods are now being exported by the EEC to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and in what quantities.

Mr. Peter Walker: No new subsidised exports to Russia of wheat, barley or bulk butter are at present being authorised and any current sales are being made under facilities granted before recent decisions. The Commission will, however, be opening tenders for the subsidised


sale of intervention butter to Russia next month within traditional trade levels. We are totally opposed to this and voted against the proposal.

Mr. Jay: Does that mean that the Commission proposes to continue subsidised sales of food to the Soviet Union, even though the United States has banned grain exports? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that that will be not merely opposed but vetoed by the British Government?

Mr. Walker: I must make it clear that the American Government have not banned wheat exports; they have banned any addition to their contractual obligations to wheat exports. Therefore, the view of the Council of Ministers on wheat was that only the traditional pattern should be followed and that no additional wheat should be exported to substitute for American supplies. Butter is a matter for the management committee. We voted against this proposal and will continue to do so.

Mr. Myles: Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on what would happen to our own agricultural industry if the surpluses of Europe were dumped in this country, as Opposition Members seem to want?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I would not speculate on that because we would not allow it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I shall attend the reception for the winners of The Queen's Award for Export and Technology.

Mr. Stanbrook: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports of thousands of so-called pickets in violent disturbances outside Hadfields this morning? Is she aware that the pickets were led by a notorious Communist who, like them,

had no connection with the dispute and whose true purpose was to create a revolutionary situation? Do we need an alteration in the law to control such a demonstration?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is a very distinguished lawyer, and I hesitate to reply. As he knows, there are two aspects here. The civil law is being changed—I believe it is in clause 14 of the Employment Bill—and I hope that we shall find a solution to that problem in that, in future, people will be able lawfully to picket only at or near their place of work. Of course, an injunction could be taken against any who were not within that category. On the criminal law, I wholly agree with my hon. Friend's implication that the law is there, and that numbers are both intimidating and obstructive, and that their presence is meant to intimidate. I also agree that it is very difficult at present to enforce the criminal law effectively.

Mr. Foulkes: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would take a moment to tell the house and the country which aspect of her economic and industrial policies has been most successful so far?

The Prime Minister: Pretty nearly all of them.

Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend address herself again to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), and consider limiting the right to assemble and demonstrate to the area within the view or hearing of any place where there is an industrial dispute?

The Prime Minister: I think that it would be best if we proceeded with the Employment Bill as it now is. There are very considerable restrictions on the right to picket contained in clause 14. I understand that it has yet to go through Committee and Report stages. If any amendment is needed, there will be the opportunity to make it.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the Prime Minister find out why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at present making speeches on industrial relations? Is it that he now expects his monetary policies to fail disastrously and is busy searching for scapegoats?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend is making speeches on that subject because he is very good at it.

Michael Brown: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I have just given.

Mr. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend note that the ISTC has assets of about £11 million and yet has not paid out strike pay? Does she not think that it is now time for unions, rather than the taxpayer, to accept the responsibility for the hardship that they inflict upon their members, many of whom are on strike against their will?

The Prime Minister: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, a number of unions do pay out strike pay and are paying it out during this strike, but not the ISTC, which has large amounts of money invested. As my hon. Friend knows, we stated in our manifesto that we would deem certain amounts to be paid from union funds and to be set against supplementary benefits. I am happy to tell him that those plans are going ahead. I hope that we shall be in a position to make an announcement soon.

Mr. Alton: Will the right hon. Lady give the House her views on the possible closure of a number of small sub-post offices, bearing in mind the inconvenience which that will cause many people and the danger to many pensioners in cities, who are worried about having to collect their pensions on a fortnightly instead of a weekly basis?

The Prime Minister: Reports on this are very premature. There was a study undertaken that indicated that quite a large number of people would prefer to have their pensions paid through bank accounts. Some already do have pensions paid through bank accounts, but that has to be quarterly. If there is a possibility of giving a larger choice to people, we shall try to do so.

Mr. Whitney: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the fact that Britain is represented in the International Olympic Committee by my Lords Exeter and Luke? My Lord

Exeter was elected to that position by no living Englishman. The only Englishman who voted for my Lord Exeter was Lord Luke. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the International Olympic Committee has recently decided to stage in Moscow this summer a re-run of the 1936 Berlin Olympics?

Mr. Cryer: What a nasty, vicious man.

The Prime Minister: As far as the decision of the International Olympic Committee to continue to hold this year's Olympic Games in Moscow is concerned, the Government have had to decide what steps to take next. We have decided to advise British athletes not to go to the Games in Moscow.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister dwell upon the picketing that is taking place within the steel industry? Will she reflect upon the reasons for the hostile picketing that is taking place? Will she ensure that the Government grasp the nettle and become actively involved in the dispute? If, as she says, the Government are deeply concerned about the economy, is it not about time that they entered into the dispute, to get the matter resolved in the interests not only of the steel workers but of the economy?

The Prime Minister: I think that I can identify two questions in that one question. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a right peacefully to picket. That does not seem to viewers the right that we are seeing exercised outside Hadfields at present. Those who undertake to do picketing in any other way attract great criticism on the part of the British public, who prefer to see these things better done. With regard to the steel dispute itself, I believe that the unions and management have to get together, and would prefer to get together, to sort it out themselves.

Mr. Blackburn: In view of the commendation given by the Prime Minister to the steel workers in the private sector at Sheerness, will my right hon. Friend in her busy day today convey to the chief officer of police whose force is involved at the Hadfields works in Sheffield our support and sympathy for those officers who have been seriously injured in the lawlessness that is taking place? Will she reaffirm to the country the basic and


the moral right of workers not in dispute to go to their places of employment without hindrance?

The Prime Minister: I shall be happy to convey my hon. Friend's message to the chief constable and to all the police for the excellent way in which they have carried out their difficult duties. Picketing of this kind puts a tremendous burden upon them, but they carry out their duties magnificently I am also happy to confirm that it is the right of ordinary law-abiding citizens to go about their business lawfully and to attend their places of work without hindrance. It is the right of a person, where there is not a dispute, to carry on that business, to have access to it, and to have access to it by suppliers and customers.

Mr. Spriggs: May I ask the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on Government policy in relation to those investigators of cases where applications for social security benefits have been applied for and stopped? Is she aware that in St. Helens we have had a case of perjured evidence, and of social security officers who have been refusing to accept genuine medical certificates as sufficient evidence for the granting of benefit?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a proper appeal procedure for these matters, and that must be exhausted first.

Mr. Heddle: asked the Prime Minister if she will list hear official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Heddle: Will my right hon. Friend take time during the course of the day to pay a tribute to the shipbuilding workers for their sense of realism in accepting the economic facts of life and accepting an 11½ per cent. pay increase in return for voluntary redundancies and reduced overtime? At the same time will she also urge trade union leaders to echo the words of the secretary of the boilermakers, Mr. John Chalmers, when he said:
We recognised that there was an availability of nothing. It was the old problem of jobs versus wages.

The Prime Minister: I believe that we must have heard the same broadcast in the early hours of this morning. What struck me very much was that the union member who was talking said
there would have been no extra money unless we had earned it, so we had to set about earning it.
He followed that by saying
If we had not, there would have been job losses.
It seems an excellent example of earnings being available and self-financing if there is increased productivity and efficiency.

Mr. Armstrong: Does the right hon. Lady agree that for any economic policy to be accepted in Britain there must be a strong element of social justice about it? Will she listen to the voices from many sections of the community who believe that her stubborn insistence on allowing the market forces free play is ruining manufacturing industry and posing a threat to our democratic way of life?

The Prime Minister: With respect, I think that that is absolute nonsense. The market consists of people being able to spend their own wages in their own way.

Mr. Kilfedder: Why are the Government attempting to penalise British athletes who have been training for years to compete with other nationals in Moscow when they can, if they deem it necessary, take political action such as withdrawing the British Ambassador? Why are the athletes being penalised?

The Prime Minister: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the Moscow Olympic Games, like their predecessors in 1936 in Germany, will be used substantially for propaganda purposes. We are saying that athletes are just like any other kind of citizen. They have the same rights and responsibilities towards freedom and its maintenance as every other citizen.

04. Mr. Canavan: asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 14 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the Prime Minister's failure to instil public confidence in British industry, which is apparently causing many promising young people to emigrate, will she assure the House that if her Mark decides to desert Britain, he will do us a favour and take his mummy with him?

The Prime Minister: If we are both so promising, would it not be better if we stayed here?

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the splendid answer that she gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) would have greater national effect it it were publicly backed by the Leader of the Opposition?

Hon. Members: Who is he?

The Prime Minister: There are times when I am grateful for his silence.

Mr. Duffy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after the statements.

Mr. Duffy: I should like you to take this one now.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take it later.

Mr. Duffy: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be patient. I normally take points of order after statements and I see no reason to change the rule.

Mr. Duffy: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a responsible Member of the House. It must be a point of order of great urgency if he wishes to press it now.

Mr. Duffy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you recall any other occasion when an hon. Member's constituency came in for such free comment in Prime Minister's Question Time, when the hon. Member was not called? I am referring, of course, to the constituency of Sheffield, Attercliffe, in which the firm of Hadfield's is situated.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings, but that is not a point of order. He well knows that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Leader of the House please state the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 18 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill.

Motion on the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (The United States of America) Order 1980.

TUESDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Supply [11th Allotted Day]: Debate on an Opposition motion on the need to continue to pay pensions and other social security benefits weekly through the post offices.

At seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.

Then: motion on European Community documents 6995/79 and 7735/79 on water pollution.

Second Reading of the Reserve Forces Bill [Lords] and remaining stages of the Residential Homes Bill [Lords], which are both consolidation measures.

WEDNESDAY 20 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Scottish economy, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Motions on the Farm and Horticulture Capital Grant (Variation) Schemes Orders.

THURSDAY 21 FEBRUARY—Debate on airports policy.

FRIDAY 22 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Consideration of private Members' motions until 7 o'clock.

Second Reading of the Consular Fees Bill.

[European Community Documents

The relevant reports are as follows:

Water Pollution 6995/79: 8th Report of Session 1979–80 H/C Paper 159-viii para. 1.

Water Pollution 7735/79: 9th Report, Session 1979–80 H/C Paper 159-ix para. 2.]

Mr. Callaghan: The Opposition will be tabling an amendment to the Broadcasting Bill because not only will the Bill


fail to provide for an open broadcasting authority; it is in flat contradiction—some Conservative Members may not have noticed this, but I am sure that the Secretary of State for Wales has—to the promise in the Queen's Speech that there would be a separate Welsh television channel. We hope that the Government will give reasons why they are asking their supporters to vote against something that they asked them to vote for only nine months ago.
What will be the nature of the debate on the third London airport? Will the Government ask for approval of their plans, or are they running away from them?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: With regard to the Broadcasting Bill, there will be consultations between the BBC and the authority about programmes in Welsh. That deals with the right hon. Gentleman's first point. With regard to his second question, on airports policy, the debate will be on a take-note motion.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Leader of the House know that the Queen's Speech, which was moved and voted upon by the House, said that an early start would be made by the Government with Welsh broadcasting on the fourth television channel in Wales? The Government will be asked to account for the fact that they have reversed themselves on the matter. Not only was this the policy on which they fought the election; it was put into the Queen's Speech. We shall expect an answer on that matter.
It is clear that the Government do not have the courage of their convictions on the third London airport. I recognise that it is a matter of controversy, and the Opposition will have a free vote on the issue. We hope that the Government will permit the same on their side.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We are making an early start on broadcasting matters. With regard to the airports debate, there will be a public inquiry and, therefore, it is suitable and in accordance with our constitution to have a take-note motion.

Mr. Callaghan: Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman does not know the facts. The Conservative Party in Wales fought the election on the basis that there would be a separate television channel for Welsh broadcasting. The pledge was repeated

in the Queen's Speech. Why is the right hon. Gentleman going back on it now?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am not going back on a pledge. As I have made plain, there will be consultations between the BBC and the authority about programmes in Welsh. What is important is not the form of the channel, but the substance of the issue.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there are two statements to follow. Therefore, I shall watch whom I call.

Sir John Eden: In view of the forthcoming debate on airports policy, will my right hon. Friend say how soon we can expect the publication of the defence White Paper?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I hope that it will be published within a reasonable time, but I cannot give my right hon. Friend an exact date.

Mr. Grimond: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a statement that has been put about by some hon. Members who have been here for some time, suggesting a possible solution to the abortion controversy? Does he agree that it would be intolerable for the matter to go on becoming more bitter and that an early solution would be desirable from the point of view of the House? There is wide agreement about the need to limit the time for abortions. Therefore, will the Government, if necessary, do their best to facilitate a compromise by which the House can legislate on that matter and that matter alone?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is an interesting suggestion. However, the tradition followed by all parties in the House with the issue of abortion is that it is a matter of conscience and it is left to private Members' legislation.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In order to carry on reforming the procedures of the House, will my right hon. Friend tell me when he intends to set up the Procedure Committee?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We shall set up the Procedure Committee when it is necessary. At the moment, we are making good progress with the main Procedure report and a great deal of work remains to be done on that. It is


much better to dispose of that before embarking on other matters.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: During next week, will the Leader of the House have a word with the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee to point out that if he wishes to attract publicity on the radio and in the press about his St. Valentine's Day steak and kidney pudding for the Prime Minister he should not use the House of Commons kitchen and chef and the taxpayers' money? By all meanslet him make a nice steak and kidney pudding for the Prime Minister, but he should not use the staff of the House of Commons.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I treat all remarks by the hon. Gentleman on dietary matters with the greatest respect. I am afraid that my right hon. Friend has not yet received that present.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us were opposed to the Maplin proposal? We are not much less enamoured of the present proposal. There has never been a proper debate on the fundamental question of whether we need more airports and where they should be. What will the position be if Thursday's motion is defeated?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is a hypothetical question. The House has a great opportunity to debate the full implications of our airports policy. I am sure that if my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will make his usual trenchant contribution.

Mr. David Marshall: The school summer holiday period in Scotland differs from that in England and Wales. As a Scottish Member with a young family at school, may I have an assurance that the month of August will be free from parliamentary duties? Holidays can then be arranged without interfering in our children's education.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. I know that Scottish Members have a particular problem. However, the question when the House rises is not entirely within my control. It depends on the progress of business.

Mr. Lawrence: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what is happening about

the proposal that foreign affairs questions should last longer than 25 minutes every two weeks?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have recently made a statement giving substantially greater time to questions on foreign affairs. That statement met the strong representations of hon. Members. Let us see how that new departure works before reviewing the matter further.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Will the Leader of the House take note of early-day motions 185 and 325?
[That this House calls for an urgent review of the vaccine damagepayments scheme, noting that a mere 366 claims have been accepted out of 2,525 applicants; urges that the benefit of any doubt should be given to the claimant rather than the present requirement which states the opposite; and urges the Government to amend the provisions which exclude those children who are less than 80 per cent. disabled by the vaccines, those disabled before 1948 and the families of those children who have died.]
[That this House deplores the Government's refusal to establish a compensation scheme for vaccine-damaged children; endorses the view of the Pearson Royal Commission that there is a special case for paying compensation for vaccine damage where vaccination is recommended by public authority and is undertaken to protect the community; recognises that the Vaccine Damage Payment Act does not purport to provide a compensation scheme; and calls upon the Government to introduce a compensation scheme as favourable to vaccine-damaged children as the industrial injuries and war pension schemes are to the industrially injured and war disabled.]
Can we have an early debate on vaccine-damaged children and compensation?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have noticed the motions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I hope that we shall be able to tackle this question when we have more resources for our social services. In the meantime, I shall draw the hon. Gentletleman's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: In view of the exceptional importance and significance of the


publication of the Brandt commission's report, can we have an early debate on that subject?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The report is extremely important and concerns one of our greatest problems. I cannot promise an early debate, but I shall consider the important request that my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House agree that in view of the cascade of pronouncements by the Prime Minister and others about the Olympic Games, it would have been good manners if a Minister had consulted the British Olympic Committee? As that committee has not been consulted since the Prime Minister wrote her letter, should we not have a statement on such a complex issue?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has corresponded with the British Olympic Association.

Mr. Marlow: As the difficulties surrounding our contribution to the EEC budget are fundamental to the Government's economic policy, will my right hon. Friend ensure that we have an early debate on European issues so that our colleagues in Europe realise the strength of feeling felt by hon. Members of all parties about the present iniquities?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal have left our friends in the Community in no doubt about the strength of feelings in Britain. However, we cannot have an early debate on foreign affairs.

Mr. Cohen: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), will the Leader of the House consider a disciplined operation of the Summer Recess? We could rise on the last Friday in July. The whole of August would then be available so that hon. Members could take holidays with their wives and families. We could possibly return in September. We might rise again at the end of September so that party conferences could be arranged in October. If the Leader of the House made such an

arrangement we could at least book our holidays in advance. Many of us are unable to do so because we do not know when the recess will be.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am sympathetic to this problem. However, perhaps the hon. Gentleman is a little premature. I have the Easter and Whitsun Recesses to cope with before considering the Summer Recess. No one will be happier than I if we rise by the end of July.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Leader of the House allow us time to debate the Select Committee's report on the interests of hon. Members? A small number of hon. Members have refused to register their interests. Until the report is printed the House cannot deal with the five hon. Members concerned. Until the House debates the report, they cannot be dealt with. If the report is printed, those outside will know what motivates certain hon. Members and the reasons lying behind various attacks, such as the attack on British Leyland cars.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: This is a difficult problem. Prime responsibility rests with the Committee. I shall have further consultations with the Chairman, in order to ascertain the present position.

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising. I know that the House is anxious to proceed with other statements, and I hope that hon. Members will co-operate.

Mr. John Evans: Is the Leader of the House aware that we have not debated the choice of nuclear reactor systems in the United Kingdom since June 1974? In view of widespread public concern, is it not time to discuss the subject again?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It it an important subject. I have noticed some alarming reports in the newspapers this morning. However, I cannot promise an early debate.

Mr. George: Would the Government transfer some of their enthusiasm for routing out abuses in the social security system to routing out abuse in a public body, namely, the Tote? Hundreds of punters have been swindled. Will the Leader of the House promise to arrange


a debate on the Horserace Totalisator Board?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall look into the question, but I cannot promise an early debate.

Mr. Duffy: The House has not been insensitive to the problems of the steel industry. However, in view of today's developments at Hadfield's, will the Leader of the House consider an early debate on the subject? Today's news of the mass arrest of pickets, injured policemen and workers set against workers betokens a rapidly deteriorating situation. Whatever may divide the workers at Hadfield's, they are agreed that relief will come not from a tightening up of the law on picketing but from a change in the policies with which the Prime Minister is identified.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that we have discussed the subject. We had a general steel debate and we also had a debate on Wales in which steel was discussed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is prepared to make a statement to the House as soon as he has something positive to announce. Meanwhile, we all desire a peaceful settlement of the dispute. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do all that he can in his constituency to ensure that the law is observed.

Mr. Ioan Evans: As the steel strike is now in its seventh week, and as it has far-reaching repercussions throughout the industry, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for Industry to make a positive statement that will bring the strike to an end?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We are all most anxious to put an end to this damaging industrial dispute. As soon as the Secretary of State has something positive to report, he will inform the House.

Mr. Buchan: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day Motion 401, which has been signed by 150 hon. Members?
[That this House is deeply concerned at the evidence now documented and published by Amnesty International of the existence of secret detention camps in the Argentine; notes the evidence regarding torture and death of large numbers of prisoners within these camps; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government both to express its horror at this situation and to ask the Argentine Government to provide detailed information about the present whereabouts of prisoners named and identified in the report.]
It refers to the horrifying report that has been produced, identified and confirmed by Amnesty International about deaths in torture camps in the Argentine. It asks for an early debate. If that is impossible, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Foreign Secretary to make the strongest representations? Above all, will he ask the Foreign Secretary to ask about the whereabouts of those named and identified in that terrifying report?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman knows the Government's general view on any abuse of human rights. I am well aware of the serious issues raised in the motion. I do not know whether we can have an early debate, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are using their influence both with our European partners and through the United Nations to see if the situation can be amelionated.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is it correct that the immigration rules will be published next Wednesday? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Select Committee report on the European convention will be published at about the same time? Will he therefore undertake that we shall have a full day's debate on the rules and the report?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The rules will be published soon, and eventually there will have to be a debate. I cannot commit myself to specific dates on either topic.

EMPLOYMENT SCHEMES

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): With the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement on the special employment measures for 1980–81.
We announced on 12 June last year some changes in the programme of special employment measures for 1979–80, which were designed to focus them more sharply on areas and groups with special employment needs and to reduce public expenditure. The current programme of measures expires on 31 March, and we have been reviewing the measures, again taking account of their cost-effectiveness, the particular groups most in need of assistance and what we could afford. We have reached the following decisions on the programme to operate in the year from 1 April 1980.
We have agreed to a proposal from the Manpower Services Commission to increase the size of the youth opportunities programme from 210,000 entrants this year to 250 to 260,000 entrants in 1980–81, with the number of filled places increasing to 100,000 to 105,000.That expansion will provide further work experience and training opportunities for unemployed young people, designed to improve their prospects of finding permanent jobs. It will enable the commission to continue to operate under the programme its present undertakings for unemployed school leavers and young people unemployed for 12 months or more.
We also have agreed to Manpower Services Commission proposals to maintain the community industry scheme for personally or socially disadvantaged unemployed young people at the current level of 6,000 filled places, and to maintain the special temporary employment programme for long-term unemployed adults at 12,000 to 14,000 filled places, concentrated on special development areas, development areas and designated inner city areas.
We have decided that the small firms employment subsidy, which is the least cost-effective of the special employment measures, should close for applications on 31 March 1980. The temporary short-time working compensation scheme,

which reimburses employers for up to six months for payments made to employees on short time as an alternative to redundancy, will continue to operate throughout the country on the present basis.
We are extending for a further year the job release scheme, which opens up vacancies for unemployed workers by enabling older workers to leave their jobs early. The scheme will continue to be open to women aged 59, but for men who are not disabled the age of eligibility under the scheme will revert from 62 to 64. With this change it will not now be necessary to tax the allowance from April 1980, as the previous Government had planned. That also applies to all those who enter the scheme by 31 March this year. The allowance will, however, be increased to £45·50 for a married person with a dependent spouse with income of £10 or less a week and to £36 for all other applicants.
There will also be a special job release scheme to enable disabled men to leave their jobs from the age of 60, as at present, and to be replaced, wherever possible, by an unemployed disabled person. As the allowances for disabled men will be payable for more than one year, they will be taxed, but will be further increased to maintain, on average, their value net of tax. The allowances will be £53 for a married man with a dependent spouse with income of £10 or less a week and £43 for other applicants.
All those changes to the job release scheme will take effect from 6 April 1980—the beginning of the next financial year.
We consider that this programme of measures will make an important contribution towards reducing unemployment and helping particularly hard-hit groups within a level of expenditure that we can afford. The impact of the measures on unemployment has increased during the present financial year and the new programme should maintain that increased impact over the year from 1 April.

Mr. Varley: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although he has worked extremely hard to win a favourable response to the package with his skilful presentation, it falls far short of current needs? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, without further substantial


special employment measures, unemployment amongst school leaves, on the Government's own figures, will double by 1981?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that many of those who were looking forward to taking advantage of the job release scheme will be bitterly disappointed? They will have to work for a further two years. The scheme could have continued.
Will the Secretary of State accept that, in real terms, he has announced an overall cut in the Manpower Services Commission budget, over and above that made last year? How can he justify not significantly expanding the special employment measures? We can all see that the economy is collapsing. Unemployment is soaring to 2 million, we have unprecedentedly high interest rates and our exports are uncompetitive.
Is it correct that Sir Richard O'Brien told the Secretary of State that the employment services, presently financed by the Government, could not remain effective and strong without further financial assistance?
Will the Secretary of State accept that his statement does not go nearly far enough? We ask for an opportunity to debate and expose it. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that his statement, and those of other Conservatives, during the election that this Government would bring down unemployment are now sick jokes?

Mr. Prior: Actually, I believe that we have done rather well. We have kept the efficient, cost-effective schemes. We have increased the schemes for young people. Under the special temporary employment programme, we are concentrating help where it is most needed.
A total of 70 per cent. of those who are now in STEP schemes—some of whom have been unemployed for a year or more—are drawn from the priority groups. Under the previous Government, the figure was only 40 per cent. The effect of our schemes this year will be to reduce the register by about 195,000 to 200,000.
The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that it is one thing to forecast just before an election what a Government hope to do, which is what the Labour

Government did; it is another to carry such proposals through after an election, when left with a public sector borrowing requirement of the size that we inherited.
Bringing down interest rates and getting the economy moving will do more than anything to help all who are unemployed. We shall not do that by simply spending taxpayers' money in the way that the previous Government did.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Is the Secretary of State aware that all the key aspects of unemployment that are supposedly alleviated by the schemes are worsening to such an extent that their enlargement is required? In particular, will he bear in mind that the six-month limit for the operation of the short-time working compensation scheme is now ridiculously short in comparison with the length of the trade recession? Will he bear in mind the iniquity of keeping this limit throughout the year?

Mr. Prior: As the hon. Member will recognise, we are considerably expanding and extending the youth employment programme. The temporary short-time working compensation scheme runs for six months. Other groups of people in the same factory can take advantage of a fresh scheme, although no one person can be helped for more than six months. In many cases so far the scheme has not needed to last for six months for individual workers or groups of workers. I realise that this is an important factor, and I believe that many people in the textile industry and other industries will be relieved to hear what the Government have done.

Mr. Gorst: Can my right hon. Friend give the net cost of the measures that he has just announced? Is it consistent with the cutting of the Manpower Services Commission budget by £30 million, which was revealed by Sir Richard O'Brien last night?

Mr. Prior: The additional cut of £30 million in the budget is for the year 1981–82 and not for 1980–81. The Manpower Services Commission will have taken a considerable cut in its budget over a period of years. I have sought to retain an efficient and cost-effective Commission with the schemes that are entailed. Some of the schemes are financed through the Manpower Service's Commission. Some


have been financed up to now through the Contingency Fund, and now they will be financed through my Department. The total cost of all the schemes this year is about £360 million, which is about the same amount as was spent last year and the year before. However, because the MSC is more cost-effective this money will help more people.

Mr. Heffer: Although the right hon. Gentleman has claimed that he has done rather well, is it not clear that the people in these areas, including the special development areas, will feel very disappointed because youth unemployment is the greatest problem there? Is he not aware that one of the real difficulties with factory closures is the problem of young apprentices who are in the middle of their apprenticeships and are thrown out of work with no prospects whatever of finishing those apprenticeships? Will he look at that specific problem, as it causes great difficulty and hardship for those youngsters who feel a sense of loss and frustration about their future employment?

Mr. Prior: I shall certainly take up the points that the hon. Member has made. A good deal of this can be covered in the training for skills programme of the Manpower Services Commission. Even though its budget may have been cut, the MSC can still make money available for this purpose. If the hon. Member wishes to send me any specific details, I shall look into them.

Mr. Madel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a special welcome for the increased opportunities which will come about as a result of the expansion of the youth opportunities programme? Will he confirm that the alterations that the Government propose for unemployed disabled people represent a considerable advance?

Mr. Prior: The scheme is the same as that which was introduced by the Labour Government just before the election. This confirms once more that, despite having to make some very painful and difficult decisions, we have been able largely to protect the disabled.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Secretary of State ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement setting out the specific application of

these policies to Northern Ireland, in view of the exceptionally severe impact of unemployment on the Province?

Mr. Prior: I shall certainly relay that message to my right hon. Friend. I have no indication to date whether he intends to make a statement to the House. The Leader of the House is present and no doubt he will pass on the message.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that the slashing of the job release scheme will cause considerable disappointment to men of 61 who were looking forward to retirement this year and will now have to wait another two years? Is it not completely daft to keep these men working when we expect school-leaver unemployment to double by next year, and the level of long-term unemployment to increase to 500,000 by 1982? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in the youth opportunities programme is not sufficient to keep up with the expected increase in youth unemployment?

Mr. Prior: Of course, in the best of all worlds, the Government would have liked to keep the age for men at 62. There is no doubt that the job release scheme is good and one of the more cost-effective schemes. However, I have had to balance out the resources available in such a way as to help the most people. I have decided—and I am certain that this is right—that we should keep the job release scheme, but because of the expense we should put the male age back to 64 for the coming year. That is reasonable. The Labour Government introduced this scheme only last March—very near the election—and I rather doubt whether they could have kept it going.

Mr. Trippier: Will my right hon. Friend accept my thanks and those of my constituents who are connected with the textile and footwear industries for his action on the temporary compensation scheme for short-time working? He has acted positively in response to our representations. Will he confirm that, where the subsidy has been claimed for certain employees in one firm, that subsidy will be available for other workers who are threatened with redundancy in the same firm?

Mr. Prior: Yes. The scheme would be available for other groups of workers in the same firm, but it could not be used by the same workers twice.

Mr. Dan Jones: Why has no reference been made to the intermediate areas?

Mr. Prior: Because there are no schemes operating for them.

Mr. Aitken: While welcoming the Secretary of State's choice of priorities in the difficult decisions that he has had to make, may I ask him whether he is satisfied that the Manpower Services Commission has presented him with sufficiently wide policy options in reducing public expenditure? In particular, is he happy with the fact that the MSC's own corporate plan does not include the option of transferring to private employment agencies, or the private sector generally, any of the functions that it carries out at present? Does that not require some second thoughts?

Mr. Prior: I constantly discuss with the Manpower Services Commission its corporate plan and a good many other matters as well which are brought to my attention. I am satisfied that the MSC is doing a good job and is a much tighter organisation than it was a few months ago. A good deal still requires to be done to make it a really fit organisation. It has an important long-term policy and plan to perform and I wish to give it every possible support. However, like other organisations it has had to bear a considerable cut in expenditure in the last year. On my hon. Friend's particular question, I promise to look at it. Already there are certain plans afoot to bring about a change.

Mr. Radice: Will the Secretary of State tell the House the cutback in the MSC's planned budget for 1980–81? Will he also tell us why the Government are closing down skillcentres in the development areas?

Mr. Prior: Some of these schemes are carried out through the Manpower Services Commission. Others are carried out through the Contingency Fund. The Manpower Services Commission, therefore, bears the cost of only some of the schemes. The actual planned budget for this year might have been in the region of £500 million. It will work out at about £360

million. There will be a saving of about £140 million. Skillcentres are a different question. I am seeking a more cost-effective scheme. We want a higher intake into our skillcentres. We want to make better use of them and better use of the people who are turned out.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great support for his selective and cost-effective approach? Will he confirm that any expansion in these programmes, however worth while, is at the cost of taxpayers' money, reduces job opportunities in private industry and also reduces the amount available for other worthwhile programmes, such as child benefits?

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend is right. I have tried to concentrate the aid and the help where there are likely to be the greatest social problems and the greatest difficulty in providing employment, chiefly among the very young and in development areas and special development areas. I recognise that there are also other priorities.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the high level of unemployment in many inner city areas, such as East London, which has a higher level of unemployment than any region except Ulster, is partly due to the fact that there is a lot of unskilled employment? There are not enough skilled men to man the skilled jobs. Is it not lunacy, therefore, especially in those areas, for the right hon. Gentleman to be shutting down skillcentres?

Mr. Prior: Despite the fact that there are large numbers of unemployed people in central and East London, there are ample job vacancies as well. These are not being filled. We had better recognise that in getting the equation right. There are more skill centre places available now than a year ago. If we are to have skilled people, we have to ensure that the differentials between skilled and unskilled are right. A lot of skilled people are now doing unskilled jobs.

Mr. Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his cost-effective package will be warmly welcomed by all fair-minded people? Can he say whether the Government are considering other measures to encourage employment, particularly of young people, along the lines, perhaps, of


the Irish Government, who, I believe, allow a tax holiday of 10 years on new inward investment?

Mr. Prior: One of the reasons why the schemes are for only a year at a time is the need to keep looking at these schemes to see how they can be improved or whether better schemes can be found that are more cost-effective than those that exist. I suspect that over the next year or two we shall need to look at the whole range of schemes so that they fit much better with training and with the period after one leaves school.

Mr. Farley: Will the Secretary of State say more about the job release scheme and his decision to change the age of eligibility from 62 to 64? The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that he regrets this very much personally. If that is so, what are the savings? Will he reconsider the matter and avoid all the disappointment that will be caused?

Mr. Prior: I have looked at this matter carefully. I believe that the Government are right in their decision. I cannot remember the exact figure for the saving of money. It is in the region of £40 million. That is a great deal of money. I believe that the way we have designed the scheme is in the best interests of all the unemployed whether they are over 62 or young people. I am firmly convinced that what we have done is right.

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of what he means by "cost-effective"? Will he give some indication of the total cost of the scheme and of its regional impact? Will he tell the House, as an extension of a previous answer he has given, the duration of the scheme and when he intends to present hon. Members with an overall picture of the total scheme that he proposes during this trade recession?

…Mr. Prior: The schemes that I am announcing today are a continuation or a rejigging of schemes that have been in existence for the last year or the last two years. The effect of the schemes on the unemployment register will be between 195,000 and 200,000 during the coming year. That is rather more than this year and more, I think, than last year. The total cost of the schemes is in

the region of £360 million for 1980–81. The regional effect is that some of the schemes, especially the special temporary employment programme, operate in development areas and special development areas. So there is an emphasis on those areas. Added to that, community industry operates much more in those areas.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call the five hon. Members, three on one side and two on the other, who have been standing.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend consider extending further the youth opportunities programme into the community service sphere, using, where possible, the voluntary organisations? In this way, not only do the people themselves benefit more but the community benefits more. More is achieved for less cost.

Mr. Prior: A certain amount of what my hon. Friend proposes is done already. One wants to make certain that these schemes perform a useful purpose. Up to about a year ago, many of these schemes were not very productive. They included the counting of lamp-posts or picking up wood from the seashore. I have tried to get many more of these schemes concentrated on industry. Where they are associated with industry, the uptake of those young people into industry afterwards is considerably higher. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says, but I believe that the best schemes are those run by industry.

Mr. Terry Davis: Why does the Secretary of State prefer to pay unemployment benefit to young people instead of making job release payments to men in their sixties?

Mr. Prior: I do not prefer paying unemployment benefit to anyone. I am concentrating the help where I believe it will do the most good.

Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend agree that much of the expenditure of the industrial training boards, in terms of cost-effectiveness, is in doubt and that some could well be abolished? Could not the whole of the £30 million that is to be saved in 1982–83 onwards be taken quite easily out of the £90 million a year grants?

Mr. Prior: We are getting on to a rather wider issue—that of the industrial training boards. This matter is being examined by the Manpower Services Commission, which will be producing a report towards the end of the summer. I believe that the House will wish to debate the report early next winter and the Government must take action on training. We are spending a lot of money on training and not necessarily getting the best results for it.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State aware that while this package of reduced employment measures may keep happy his restive Back Benchers it will not impress the workers in the clothing, carpet and textile industries, who can see no glimmer of light from this reduction in measures? The Secretary of State has still not told the House the net saving to the Government. This is an economy. The workers in these industries are very angry about the measures.

Mr. Prior: When the Government came into office, the impact of the measures on unemployment was 165,000. This year, it will be just on 200,000. Ought not the hon. Gentleman to address his remarks elsewhere?

Mr. James Callaghan: Mr. James Callaghan rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the Leader of the Opposition afterwards. There is just one more hon. Member to be called.

Mr. Straw: Is not the Secretary of State aware that far from his announcement being greeted with relief in the textile areas of Lancashire and Yorkshire it will be greeted with dismay? The Government have failed to recognise that

since these schemes were introduced the crisis in the textile and clothing industries has greatly worsened. Will the Secretary of State at least consider whether the conditions of time limits within the short-time working compensation scheme could be extended?

Mr. Prior: I do not think that I should hold out any hope that the limits of the present scheme can be extended. I do not think that this would be helpful for the industry or the people who work in it. It is far better that there should be a degree of certainty and that we should use the money to the best effect.

Mr. James Callaghan: We believe that the proposals are inadequate. Will the Secretary of State address himself once again to the question that he has been asked a number of times? The cost of raising the age from 62 to 64 is £45 million and about40,000 men between the ages of 62 and 64 will stay at work. On what criteria does the Secretary of State think that it is better to keep 40,000 men between the ages of 62 and 64 at work than to replace them by young men who have been on the unemployed register for a long time?

Mr. Prior: Although it is about the most cost-effective scheme that we have, the gross cost per person, taking into account what the right hon. Gentleman said about young people, is still £2,500 and the net cost is £900. Although it is a cost-effective scheme, it is expensive. When I came to balance the needs of the package as a whole, I decided to take this step. If Labour Members thought that it was such a good scheme, why did they not introduce it before they did?

MEMBERS' PAY AND ALLOWANCES

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the pay and allowances of Members of Parliament.
The thirteenth report of the Review Body on Top Salaries is published today as Cmnd. 7825. Copies are available in the Vote Office. Hon. Members will have an early opportunity to debate the report, but I would today like to outline briefly the review body's recommendations and to tell the House the Government's reactions.
The Government are most grateful to Lord Boyle, the chairman of the review body, and his colleagues for the consideration that they have given to these issues. We accept in general the report's recommendations but would like to propose some modifications, which I shall explain.
The review body comments on the growing usage of secretarial and research assistance by hon. Members, reflecting the growth in paperwork and the need for them to inform themselves on increasingly technical or specialist subjects. Consequently, it proposes that the present secretarial allowance, which was fixed at an interim level of £4,600 last summer, should be replaced by two allowances with maxima of £5,500 for the employment of a full-time secretary, and £1,250 for part-time research assistance. The Government consider that this change in the scope of the allowance will help hon. Members with their task and contribute to the better functioning of Parliament. However, we do not believe that it would be right to make it obligatory that hon. Members should have their secretaries paid directly by the Fees Office as the review body suggests, although we would strongly urge hon. Members to adopt that method of payment.
The suggestion is also made in the report, although it was not within the review body's terms of reference, that the House might possibly wish to reconsider the question of secretaries being employees of the House rather than of hon. Members. Hon. Members may well

wish to express their views on this issue when we debate the report in greater detail. However, I am conscious of the fact that in the past many hon. Members have felt that they should remain their secretary's employer, and this is a view that we share.
The review body has also looked at the question of providing severance pay and pensions for secretaries, and also at whether the secretarial allowance should be paid during a period of Dissolution, but it has recommended no change in the existing arrangements.
I turn to the review body's recommendations on hon. Members' pension arrangements. The Government accept the conclusion that the existing rate of accrual is satisfactory and that no further improvement of provisions for back-service credit would be appropriate. The Government also agree, however, that there should be more flexibility in the time limit within which hon. Members may transfer pension rights into the scheme. An appropriate amendment will be introduced when further legislation on the scheme is planned. The Government also accept, in principle, the proposal to use the Members' Fund to provide a measure of benefit as of right to Members who left the House before 16 October 1964 and their dependants. Once the options have been examined and costed in greater detail, appropriate legislation will be introduced.
I now come to the recommendations on other parliamentary allowances and facilities. First, on severance pay, the review body considers that there could be difficulties for the older longer-serving Members when they lose their seats, and it recommends a higher severance payment for them. The report also looks carefully at the problem of the expenses that Ministers in the House of Lords incur, and recommends that an allowance of up to £1,000 per annum should be available towards the cost of secretarial assistance needed to deal with non-departmental correspondence, subject to the production of evidence of expenditure. These Ministers will, however, cease to be eligible for the maximum of £700 per annum of peers expenses allowance which they may currently claim.
As part of its remit the review body also looked at the question of constituency surgery costs, travelling expenses of


spouses attending official functions, and the cost of office equipment. Apart from a minor change to the spouses' travel arrangements the review body sees no case for introducing special allowances.
I turn to the question of travel facilities. The review body reiterates the view expressed in its eighth report in 1976 that the costs of all journeys within the United Kingdom on parliamentary business should be reimbursed. The Government recognise the argument that this improvement might help Members carry out their duties but feel unable, because of the costs involved, to accept this recommendation at the present time.
Finally, there is the question of how Members' pay should be treated for the future, and whether it should be linked in any way. The review body, having considered this issue very carefully once more, concludes that linkage would be inappropriate for hon. Members' salaries. The remit to the review body asked it to look specifically at professional analogues, but the conclusion reached here is that there is no similarity between the functions and responsibilities of any professional group and those of hon. Members, and that there is no relationship in terms of pay.
The TSRB reiterates that in its view regular independent review remains the best way of dealing with parliamentary pay, and in the light of all these factors the Government intend to propose the institution of annual TSRB reviews on the parliamentary salary starting from next year. The intention would be to invite the review body to take account particularly of salary movements in the professional field. Of course, the Government could not undertake a blanket commitment to implement whatever is recommended with regard to hon. Members' salaries, but our firm intention is that recommendations will be implemented unless there are clear and compelling reasons to the contrary.

Mr. Foot: I am sure that the House will welcome the emphasis in the Boyle report on improved payment for secretaries, without whom we should not be able to do our duty. That part of the report is likely to be approved by the House. However, the Chancellor of the Duchy seems to pick and choose between the recommendations. The House will

also wish to exercise its right to pick and choose. Will the Chancellor therefore make arrangements for the House to debate this issue so that it can settle the matter? May we have an undertaking that the Government will reserve their opinion until they have heard what the House has to say? Surely the Chancellor of the Duchy should consult all parts of the House before reaching a final decision.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite right in saying that we have indulged in picking and choosing. The majority of the recommendations have been accepted by the Government, with one or two reservations. I held informal consultations in various parts of the House on a confidential basis before coming to the House with the recommendations. There will be an early debate. The decision of the House will be final.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a matter for a decision of the House of Commons and that it is wrong for the Government to seek to qualify any significant or tangible parts of the recommendation if in due course the House of Commons expresses clear opinions about the way in which this package should be constructed?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that the Government have fulfilled their duty. The Government must, with a report of this nature consider, in the light of the situation, what their recommendations to the House should be. As I have just said, it is then for the House to decide on those recommendations.

Mr. Beith: Does the Leader of the House realise that out of the new secretarial allowance once an hon. Member has paid national insurance contributions for his secretary and made some contribution to a pension for her he is left with a maximum of £4,700 a year? That assumes that he pays for his office expenses out of his own pocket. Is that the going rate for an experienced secretary in the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I quite agree. Hon. Members have to pay 13½ per cent. of the salary for national insurance purposes. These arrangements are not generous. Indeed, they are minimal recommendations—and I fully accept that.


However, they are the recommendations of the independent review body.

Mr. English: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure when we have the debate that he has promised that on the Order Paper for the consideration of the House will be a motion to consider the first van Straubenzee report, which has never been considered? The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that it recommended as an option—not in a mandatory way—that hon. Members should be allowed to place their secretaries on the House of Commons payroll. No one has ever allowed the House to discuss that matter. The Leader of the House could easily include that in the debate if she wished.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that that important report will be relevant to the debate and, subject to Mr. Speaker's ruling, that references to it will be in order. The question of the option is, of course, one of the issues that will be discussed in the debate.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us are pleased that there is to be an annual salary review? We feel that that is the best way to deal with the situation. Equally, many of us are somewhat disturbed that each and every one of those reviews—or some in succession—can be negatived by what are described by my right hon. Friend as "clear and compelling reasons". Can he give the House any indication of the sorts of reason that might negative the annual review?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: There is no great mystery about this. It is impossible for any Government to accept a review that they have not seen. We must take account of the circumstances of the time. I have said that the presumption is that the Government will accept the report subject to particular circumstances such as a crisis or some kind of economic difficulty. That reservation must be made. I can only pray in aid the behaviour of the Government on this matter. We have agreed that there should be a review to be completed later this year of the second instalment of hon. Members' pay and have given an undertaking that we will fulfill that. This report is in fulfilment of another Government pledge and therefore I suggest that the record of the Gov-

ernment on this matter is perfectly reasonable and convincing.

Mr. Viggers: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the depth of feeling in the country about the index-linking of salaries of Members of Parliament? Is he aware that there will be relief that Members of Parliament will not have the benefit of index-linking when so many people do not have it? Does he agree that it is right that we should not benefit from inflation?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I know well the case for index-linking. In the present economic situation, however, it is not a politically viable option for any Government to propose index-linking. I have, therefore, done the best that I can to make sure that the salaries of hon. Members do not fall behind. I hope that the annual review will be taken not as a major event but as a routine event.

Mr. Whitehead: As the Chancellor of the Duchy is clearly under whelmed by the recommendations on secretaries and research assistants does he not agree that there is a case in the House for an upward amendment of those figures since there is no way in which a secretary can fairly be said to be competing for a share of the general office expenses allowance given that she has, under these recommendations, no pension or severance pay arrangements? Does not the right hon. Gentleman also agree that a research assistant cannot be paid £20 a week? The position is that some hon. Members with substantial outside interests can employ a research assistant and others cannot.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not pretend that these proposals are perfect, but at any rate they are an improvement on the existing situation. The hon. Gentleman's point is one that he can make in the debate. No doubt other hon. Members will make it.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his attitude to the question of travel arangements within the United Kingdom and recognise that in saying "No" he really is penny pinching? The Government could quite easily limit the number of available tickets on


British Rail. After all, British Rail is running at a loss and the Government are paying money to it. It needs it. A limit on the number of tickets would enable hon. Members on both sides of the House who need to go outside their constituencies from time to time to obtain the knowledge that is essential for them in the performance of their parliamentary duties Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that it is fair of my hon. Friend to can me a penny pincher. I have been called the last of the big spenders by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If my hon. Friend looks carefully at what I said, he will see that I have not closed the door entirely on this matter. We are open to suggestions, but at the moment the Government cannot accept that recommendation.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that there is a lot of evidence of considerable hardship among hon. Members who retired before 1964? If there is any spare cash available will he recognise that there would be agreement on both sides of the House if the Government erred on the side of generosity in their treatment of these men?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. However, the review body has concluded—as review committees have concluded before—that we cannot in principle allow hon. Members who have not been participants in the scheme and who were not eligible for the scheme when it came into operation to participate in it. That is a normal rule of pensions practice. Therefore, we welcome the suggestion that the Members' Fund, which is currently under-used, should be used for this purpose. I hope that the trustees of the Fund will use it generously and that for certain categories of ex-Members it will be a right not a discretion.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I see that hon. Members are all jumping up. I had better impose a limit now. As long as I keep calling them, hon. Members will jump up. I propose to indicate that any hon. Member who has not risen hitherto and who rises after this warning will not be called.

Mr. Trippier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is a strong case for paying secretaries much more money provided that they are willing to undertake research as well as do their job as secretaries to Members of Parliament? If secretaries work for long hours—my secretary certainly does—they should be entitled to claim for that work quite legitimately and the money should be paid direct by the Fees Office.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is a perfectly valid point. It is a matter for arrangement with the Fees Office rather than with me. I take the view that these two allowances are for work done and that they need not be rigidly separated.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Even so, will the right hon. Gentleman please look again at the matter of severance pay for secretaries? There are women who work in this House all their lives under worse conditions than are found outside in industry and who, at the end of their careers because of the death or translation of their Member, they find themselves without any support.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I accept what the hon. Lady says. I am aware that under the Redundancy Payments Acts a heavy burden can fall on hon. Members. I am not unsympathetic to the point and I think that it is one that could be pursued in the debate. However, the review body has made its recommendation.

Mr. Ogden: Should not the House be grateful for the improvements announced by the right hon. Gentleman? He is not an unskilled negotiator. Is he aware that he is following exactly the same well-worn path to the worst of all possible worlds that was trodden by his predecessors in that office? Although he cannot say that the Government will commit the House of Commons to a review, cannot the Government stop putting forward their own recommendations? It is not unknown in the world outside for people engaged in a dispute or wages negotiations to say that the matter should be put to an arbitration or independent review body, whose findings they accept in advance. Is not that the only way to go on without always getting the worst of all possible worlds?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman is being a little pesimistic. The fact that there will be an annual review is a real advance. I have gone as far as I can to committing the Government to accepting that review. One cannot say that in all circumstances. I hope that after the system has been in operation for a certain time the practical result will be the same as the theoretical one adumbrated by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dubs: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that many of us are grateful for an improvement in the secretarial allowances? However, does that not leave a lot to be desired in the general conditions under which secretaries are employed? Severance pay was mentioned. Secretaries' pensions are inadequate. There is no provision for sickness. Do we not still appear to be employing secretaries like employees in an old-fashioned sweatshop? Should we not reconsider this matter and set decent standards as employers of secretaries?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Nobody could quarrel with that. In this case the employers suffer with their employees.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen who are now rising were not here when I said that I would call those who were then standing.

Mr. Foulkes: In all fairness we should thank the Leader of the House for what he has done. This is a step forward. When we discuss this matter, could we have a report to Members of Parliament on the accommodation in and around the Palace of Westminster? That is a corollary of having extra money for secretaries and additional research assistants. We should have decent accommodation in which to put them. Information about the accommodation in and around the Palace of Westminster seems to be a bigger secret than that about MI5 and MI6, about which we may read fairly openly. The question of travel was raised. The Boyle committee recommended that we should be entitled to travel throughout the country, yet that recommendation has not been taken up by the Government. Hon. Members do not travel around the country lightly or unnecessarily.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask questions. He is making debating points, which can be raised when the matter is discussed.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Government will reconsider the matter of travel before the debate?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous words. I hope that this will be achieved by the annual review: we should never get into the situation again when a large gap opens up between Members' salaries and the inflation compensation that they should have had. Otherwise there is a totally false impression of large rises being given to Members of Parliament, although their remuneration is catching up only with past inflation. There will be a gain.
I shall certainly consider the subject of travel in the light of what the hon. Gentleman said and of the debate. Accommodation, both inside and outside the House, is being kept under continuous review by the Services Committee and the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison). The hon. Gentleman said that it was as difficult to find details about accommodation as it was about MI5 and MI6. The right hon. Gentleman is in charge of all this. In effect I might describe him as "MI7".

Mr. Cryer: Does the Leader of the House accept that we welcome the secretarial improvements? He made special mention of an annual review to prevent the salaries of Members of Parliament from falling behind. Does he accept that striking steel workers are making exactly the same point? Their salaries are being forced to fall behind as a result of the arbitrary action of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman can intervene on behalf of Members of Parliament, why cannot his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry intervene on behalf of the striking steel workers and get the dispute settled?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is an interesting question. I am responsible for Members of Parliament. I am not responsible for striking steel workers. I shall do my best. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will do his best.

SUB JUDICE RULE (RHODESIAN COURT ACTIONS)

Mr. Speaker: In reply to the query raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I should explain that it was ruled on two occasions by Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown that the sub judice rule does not apply to proceedings in courts of law outside the United Kingdom. These rulings have been followed by every Speaker since Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown. Therefore, there is no restriction of any kind on questions or debates relating to the proceedings of courts in Southern Rhodesia.
I call the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to speak to a point of order. He appears to have forgotten it.

Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had not forgotten it. There is clearly a misunderstanding. In negotiations with your office, it was decided that this point of order would not be pursued.

Mr. Speaker: That shows that my office is able to attend to matters efficiently and quietly. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has not pursued the point of order.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COMMON FISHERIES POLICY)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community documents R/107/78, R/232/78, S/365/78, R/3012/78, R/3044/78, R/3045/7S, 5877/79, 6276/79, 7348/79, 8392/79, 8608/79, 9912/79, 10285/79, 10966/79, and Add.1, 11035/79, 11104/79, 11292/79, 4096/80, and 4481/80, and supports the Government in its aim of securing an early and comprehensive settlement of the revised Common Fisheries Policy which adequately meets the needs of the United Kingdom Fishing Industry as a whole.
At the beginning of the debate, I should like to say how much I regret the fact that when I made a statement about the last meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers the Chairman and members of the Scrutiny Committee felt that the Government had failed in an undertaking that they made not to reach agreements on some of the papers that we are discussing this afternoon until the matter had been examined by the House and the Scrutiny Committee. I greatly regret that that should have been their view. Perhaps the position would not have arisen if in my statement I had specifically spelt out that I took the action I did on the matter knowing the obligations to the Scrutiny Committee, because of the events that were involved. If the omission from my statement of that type of wording created the feeling that we had run roughshod over the important function of the Scrutiny Committee, I deeply regret it. I assure the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee and those involved with the matter that I consider their function, powers and task in the House to be of immense importance in the whole European position. I and my Department always wish to comply with undertakings that have been given.
I can claim that since I have had the responsibility in this office, which perhaps exposes one to the Community more than any other, following every meeting I have immediately returned and reported to the House, no matter how trivial some of those meetings have been and despite the lack of decisions. I shall certainly continue with that practice.
The events that resulted in a decision being taken upon total allowable catches


and the reporting procedure were on the basis of a document from the Commission which was tabled two days before the Council meeting, with important changes upon the previous recommendations. At that meeting we were able to stop the views of a number of member States that wanted the TACs to be based upon less scientific evidence than we should have required. As we had the opportunity of reaching agreement on these matters, I decided that it was in the national interest to do so.
I also knew from what was said in the House, and what was then currently being said to me by the industry, that the progress we made on both measures was in the interests of the industry. Certainly it has not been disputed since by any section of the industry. I totally respect the undertakings given and on all future occasions shall endeavour to do so unless a matter of national interest is involved. If that happens, one must specifically make clear in the statement that follows that that is the reason.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The Scrutiny Committee will be glad to accept the Minister's assurance. It might be helpful in future for the Minister to communicate with the Committee or myself as Chairman of the Committee.

Mr. Walker: I accept that advice and will certainly follow it if such an occasion arises in future.
This is the first full debate on fisheries that the House has had since December 1977. I very much welcome the debate because fishing is a matter on which there is no party difference of doctrine. Neither has there been any difference in the policy objectives pursued by my predecessor and myself. We have before us a vast range of documents. A memorandum has been circulated with them to explain them and show how they relate one to another, and I hope it will be of assistance to the House.
The documents cover a whole range of matters that have been discussed by the Council of Ministers since December 1977, but the basic documents with which most of the others are either directly or indirectly connected are R/107/78 and the amendments to it. I shall address myself to the major parts of document R/107/78, which will automatically bring

into play the other documents before the House.
The first part of the proposals deals with access. The Government's view—and the view of the previous Government—is that we need an adequate exclusive zone. The proposals made in the document are inadequate and we need an area of preferential access beyond that. The proposals are not acceptable to the Government. We shall be moving towards discussing the question of access and areas of preferential access in the coming weeks and months. The Government's view remains as I and my predecessor have always expressed it. Tough negotiations lie ahead on the first part of the document.
The second part of the document deals with total allowable catches, and that part has been amended by document 4481/80. I am pleased to say that at the last Council meeting agreement was reached upon the TACs, and that agreement marked an important stage of the negotiations. With all the difficulties and uncertainties in the British fishing industry, I am strongly of the view that the most important task of the Government is to achieve a common fisheries policy that meets the industry's requirements. Until that objective is reached, there will be considerable uncertainty in the industry about investment policies and the activities that it should pursue.
My predecessor, in the tough negotiations he undertook, had the support of the whole House. I am not criticising my predecessor, but, as a result of the proposals on which he negotiated and which the British Government rejected, I inherited a position of stalemate with the Eight. I have had to try to negotiate in a situation in which no basic proposals were in existence and on the basis of discovering on the latest information whether a fisheries agreement could be obtained with the Eight.
The first two meetings which I attended were not concerned with major points of principle, and on many issues Britain was in a minority of eight to one. I was anxious to get discussions going on the TAC position for 1980 so that we could start negotiating quotas on the basis of updated TACs. We thought, and the industry agreed, that it was in the interests of the industry to have TACs based on the best possible scien-


tific evidence. Several member States wanted TACs to be dramatically changed, in conflict with the scientific evidence but in the immediate interests of their fishermen. Although I understand those pressures—they are pressures which are upon any Minister in my position—I have no doubt that it is in the best interests of British fishing, and European fishing, to secure a proper scientific basis for TACs. I was therefore pleased that at the last Council meeting we were able to reach an agreement based on sound scientific evidence. At the same time we dealt with catch returns, which I will mention later.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up a question on the scientific basis of the total allowable catch? I understand that the scientific reports and investigations on which the conclusion was based are out of date in the sense that subsequent evidence should become available in the next few weeks which could well throw a different light on the question.

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. We are expecting, probably in March, further information which may change the basis of some of the TACs that we have agreed. The Council is perfectly willing to change the TACs if there is sound scientific evidence for doing so. The principle I am anxious to secure is that, whatever happens to the TACs, they should be based on scientific evidence and not upon a specific immediate political or economic problem of one member State. Having achieved TACs on that basis, we agreed with other members of the Council and the Commission that if further scientific evidence became available the TACs should be reviewed in that light; and that will be the Government's policy.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the scientific evidence will be tempered by the experience of those who actually catch fish?

Mr. Walker: If the evidence is tempered by the experience of those who catch fish, there will be a considerable measure of disagreement between the fishermen. Once we start on the road of allowing any group of fishermen to fish as much herring as possible—as all fisher-

men would like to do—we quickly get away from sensible conservation policies. We have already suffered in both British and European waters from the lack of sensibly based scientific conservation policies, and I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. The leaders of the British fishermen genuinely recognise the importance of pursuing sensible conservation policies. In our negotiations with the industry, we have had no difficulty in pursuing the line of argument I have outlined upon TACs and catch reporting.
I move on to the coming Council meeting and the question of quotas dealt with in document R/107/78. Here the Commission will be tabling quotas which are different from those agreed to by the Eight at their meeting in Berlin. Those quotas were unacceptable to the previous British Government and are unacceptable to my Government. Those quotas will be framed by the Commission after discussions between the Commissioner and each individual country.
In our discussions with the Commissioner we shall be arguing strongly that in framing the quotas he must take into account Britain's geographical position, our historical position and the loss of fishing that we have already sustained in third country waters. Only on that basis will fair and reasonable quotas acceptable to the Government be agreed.
That will be the next stage of the negotiations, a tough and difficult stage, because conflicting interests are involved. I shall be objectively trying to judge the scene and looking at it from the point of view of my colleagues in the Council of Ministers and their national interests. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have had bilateral talks with all the Ministers to discuss their problems and aspirations in terms of quotas. From those discussions I see no reason why a sensible quota arrangement should not be reached which would be acceptable to the British fishing industry and other European fishing industries. That will be the next stage of our negotiations.
The third part of the document deals with conservation. There are a number of proposals with which we disagree, but mainly on timing. I do not believe that there is a great deal of difference in principle on conservation measures between the member States. The arguments


have been primarily on timing, and there are a number of improvements that we wish to make in the Commission's proposals.
We have made it clear that until such time as there is a satisfactory Community conservation policy we have the legal right to take whatever conservation measures we consider necessary in our waters. On the future of conservation, there are issues of fundamental importance to fishing, such as the continuance of a sensible pout box and the operation of that box so that many species of fish are not adversely affected by industrial fishing carried out in a manner that does considerable damage to other stocks.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Is the Minister sticking to the provision that there would be an emergency power for a member State to take action on conservation, with the Commission simply being informed?

Mr. Walker: It is fundamental to the conservation policy that there must be an emergency power with the member State. We shall be negotiating that.
The fourth part of the document deals with the control of the quotas. We have agreed a system of catch reporting. The current position is that catch reporting will be made by all member States to the Commission but based upon their existing national reporting system. By 1 July we shall agree upon a Community method of catch reporting the detail of which has not yet been negotiated. We shall inform the House of the details when they are available and of the Government's view on the matter.
British fishermen are concerned about fish imports. No common fisheries agreement is of any importance or substance unless it has a proper system of control. One of the fears of our fishermen is that, while the British fishing industry is respecting our conservation measures and the quotas that we consider are in compliance with our proper share of the quotas, there are fishermen from other countries who ignore the theoretical quotas, resulting in considerable imports into Britain that depress the price of fish.
There is no way in which we can achieve a firm control of the position, and make the appropriate representations unless we have some form of Community

catch reporting. That is why we welcome the creation of a system, in spite of the objection of one or two member States, and we welcome the move towards what we hope will be a properly controlled and inspected system of catch reporting from 1 July.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Mr. Robert Hughes(Aberdeen, North) rose—

Mr. Walker: It is a short debate and I am trying not to take too much time as I wish to hear many hon. Members.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister say a little more about catch reporting? All our past evidence shows that quotas based on catch reporting do not work. Has he set his face totally against licensed fishing effort as a method of conservation and controlling the amount of fish caught?

Mr. Walker: No, I have not set my face against that. We shall examine for both national and European purposes the whole possibility of licensing control of effort. There is no way in the near future whereby we could have a system of licensing. A system of properly inspected catch reporting—we have never had that—might make a considerable improvement. We are anxious to move towards a system of effective control of whatever quotas and TACs are eventually agreed.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the report of the Select Committee on trade and industry which drew attention to the difference between a record of catches and a record of the killing of fish? When purse seine nets take a shoal and dump it dead on the sea floor, that does not appear in the catch total, although it is part of the slaughter of breeding stock.

Mr. Walker: We shall certainly take that into account.
The fifth part of the document concerns marketing and the restructuring of the industry. It will become an important part of the Community fisheries policy once we reach the basic agreement on the policy itself. At this juncture we cannot make rational decisions in terms of Community policy about restructuring until we know the total arrangements.
I turn to the external position, namely, the relationship with third countries. The one document that is before the House affects the framework agreement with Norway. We considered that it was in the interests of the British fishing industry that that should have been granted. The industry agreed because of the fishing rights that we obtained from Norway and Norway's insistence that there was a signature to the framework agreement. The relationship with Norway is of great importance to the United Kingdom. It was right to go ahead with the framework agreement.
On third country agreements in general, we are anxious to ensure that, as Community policy develops, we try to find every possible opportunity for the British long-distance fleet to obtain advantage from third party agreements now made by the Community.
I turn next to the current position of the fishing industry, which is related to all the documents and papers and is causing real concern to both sides of the House and all those closely connected with the fishing industry. There is no doubt that in recent years the industry has suffered from a considerable range of problems. The loss of the fishing in the Icelandic waters was a real blow to our long-distance fleet. Following that, there has been a considerable deterioration in the landings of British fishermen and an increase in imports.
The position on demersal fish is that from 1976 to 1977 there was a drop in British landings of 77,000 tonnes; from 1977 to 1978, 65,000 tonnes; and the best estimate for last year is a probable drop of 50,000 to 60,000 tonnes. Although the drop has declined in totality, it is a frightening trend and an indication of the real difficulties in which it has placed our industry since 1976.
There was an increase in imports from 1976 to 1977 of 9,000 tonnes; from 1977 to 1978 of 92,000 tonnes; and our best estimate for 1979 is a further increase of 38,000 tonnes. That is creating problems which have been heightened suddenly over the past few weeks.
The price position in January was of considerable concern and had considerable impact on the whole industry. It is interesting to note the dramatic change

that took place in the two months of December and January. In December, compared with 12 months previously, the price of all demersal fish landed in Britain was 6 per cent. higher. Although that was an increase, it was not sufficient to meet increasing costs. By January, the difference from the previous year had altered from an increase of 6 per cent. to a decline of 7 per cent. In December, cod prices were 8 per cent. above what they were the previous year. In January they were 16 per cent. below those in the previous year. It is difficult to calculate the reasons for that.
There is an immediate explanation with regard to cod prices. To some extent that was due to the better fishing weather that existed this January compared with the year previously, which resulted in cod landings being double what they were the previous year. However, that does not explain some of the differences elsewhere. There is no doubt that there are considerable problems in relation to the range of imports coming into Britain. We are discussing this matter in detail with the industry, and from those discussions I shall have discussions with my colleagues within the Community. I hope that something will be achieved in order to get more orderly marketing in respect of some of those imports. The banning of imports would be nonsense. Britain has always had substantial imports of fish, and we have a major processing industry which depends upon those imports. However, some of the disruption that has been caused through pricing has caused great difficulties for the industry.
In addition, there is the problem of increased costs, such as fuel costs, wages costs and so on, which affect the fishing industry as much as other industries. The fishing industry also feels at a disadvantage because of the difference in aids which other European countries give to their industries.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Perhaps part of the reason for the distortion in price, particularly in regard to cod, could be massive over fishing by some of our Community partners, such as the Netherlands. I think that the Netherlands fished out the whole of its quota for last year in the first six months of that year. Some of its catches must have been exported on


the so-called black market, thus undercutting our own producers. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he ought to be doing something to protect our own people?

Mr. Walker: I referred to that previously. I pointed out that without any Community system of catch reporting that is what has happened. People have fished way beyond the theoretical quotas to which they have agreed, doubtless to the disadvantage of our market. One of the advantages of now having monthly fish reporting available is that, if people such as the Germans and Dutch do what they have done in the past, we can raise the matter and try to get the appropriate action taken.

Mr. Mark Hughes: The difficulty is that we are not having theoretical twelfths per month. It has always been the practice of the Dutch to catch 12 months worth of cod in four months of the year. It would not be practical to allocate that quota over 12 months, yet that is what the right hon. Gentleman came near to saying.

Mr. Walker: I do not think that the hon. Gentlenman heard what his hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said. His hon. Friend pointed out that at present the Dutch catch well above their quota. The Dutch figures for cod caught last year are now known, and they show that they were well in excess of the quota. But if there is a system of catch reporting we shall know when they have reached the theoretical quota that they should adopt.
At Question Time, one of my hon. Friends, the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), asked whether we had completed the review of national aids that are carried out by other Community countries. I cannot say that we have completed the review, because it is a continuing process. We cannot be certain that we have identified all the aids that are available. For example, some local government and regional aids are difficult to identify. However, my hon. Friend may be interested to learn of the figures that we have so far obtained. We have obtained them from all the countries of the Community with the exception of Italy. But Italy's fishing performance is not one that creates any great conflict

with us and it is not of great importance to us.
For the remaining countries, we added up both the capital and operating aids that are made by the various member countries, and I shall send my hon. Friend the details of some of the figures that we have obtained so far. But they do not confirm the view that is sometimes generally expressed that other European countries are massively subsidising their fishing industries whereas we are not, as a result of which we are at a great disvantage.
It is true that the French have a substantial advantage in national aids. Their total capital and operating aids that we have been able to identify come to 37 per cent. of the totality of aids of eight countries. On the other hand, France has 27 per cent. of the total community fleet and 14 per cent. of the national landings. Therefore, the French get considerable benefit from national aids.
Denmark has 15 per cent. of the national aids, 17 per cent. of the fleet and 47 per cent. of the national landings. Holland has 4 per cent. of the national aids, 10 per cent. of the fleet and 5 per cent. of the national landings. The United Kingdom has 17 per cent. of the aids, 26 per cent. of the fleet and 24 per cent. of the landings.
However, I should add a few words of caution about those figures. First, the most up-to-date fleet figures that I have are for 1978, whereas the figures for national aids are those budgeted for 1980 or actually paid in 1979. Therefore, the investment figures are more up to date than those for the sizes of the national fleets.

Mr. George Foulkes: I do not want to question what the right hon. Gentleman has said. However, how does he reconcile what he has said with what is said by the British Fishing Federation, which in its most recent letter gives an indication of the kind of aid that is given "overtly or covertly" by other European countries? Are we really aware of all the aid that is given in terms of fuel subsidies, laying-up premiums, scrapping premiums, and so on? There seems to be a great divergence between what the right hon. Gentleman has said and what the fishing associations have said.

Mr. Walker: I undertook to endeavour to ascertain as much information as I could. I said earlier that it is impossible to guarantee that some forms of aid are not concealed in various ways. Nor can I guarantee that some local authorities do not give aid which is not shown in the figures. Through our embassies in each country, I have tried to identify all the aids about which we could obtain information. Some of them are published in the national budgets.
For example, the point of greatest jealousy for our fishermen is the French fuel subsidy, which is an obvious and blatant one. We have all the figures about that. We have looked at this matter carefully, and I know that there is grievance among our fishermen. But, for example, Holland and Denmark are both countries which are affected by the current import position. If anything, the figures that are available in terms of national landings and aids put them at a disadvantage compared with national aids in this country.
It is important not to get a disruption of the opportunities in various waters in Europe as a result of substantial differences in national aids. We shall be working towards that goal. We recognise the real difficulties in some sections of our fishing industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has had a series of meetings with the fishing industry in Scotland and has undertaken to consider the representations, views and ideas that were put to him about what immediate measures could be taken to help.
Likewise, my hon. Friend the Minister of State has had detailed discussions with the British fishing industry, as I have. Only this week we have received a range of suggestions and proposals which will be considered by the Government.
But, in my judgment, by far the most important thing that we could do for the fishing industry in 1980 is to finalise a rational, sensible and advantageous Community fisheries agreement. If we could do that, it would safeguard the future of the British fishing industry, it would bring into being for the first time in history a conservation policy over an area of sea which would be meaningful and effective

and it would be possible for the Government to make decisions on restructuring in other areas in order to provide a better future for the British fishing industry compared with the considerable difficulties which it has faced over the last four or five years. That will be the Government's objective in the months of undoubtedly difficult negotiations which lie ahead.

Mr. Roy Mason: We have 19 EEC documents before us, 18 of which, dating back to 1978, are "take note" documents. The nineteenth document, No. 4481/80, is the reason for our debate today. This paper, which deals with total catches and catch reporting, was considered by the Minister and the Council. It has prompted this debate because the right hon. Gentleman the Minister incurred the displeasure of the House when he made the agreement before consulting the House. We are grateful that he has expressed his regrets and that he now accepts the principle established by the previous Administration, and confirmed by the present Leader of the House, that when the Select Committee on European legislation recommends a debate in the House before European agreements are made—whether on fisheries or on any other topic—he will abide by that principle. In addition, I hope that he does not think that he can make deals with sections of the industry in Brussels and bypass the House. That will lead only to division between us, and support will no longer be forthcoming from Labour Members.
It is important that we establish clearly that the House and the Government still back the jointly agreed main proposals for the United Kingdom in a common fisheries policy. These are: an exclusive 12-mile belt for our fishermen, a dominant preference in a 12-to-50-mile zone, the establishment of proper conservation measures and protection, and proper quotas for our fishermen based on our historic rights—that is, a fair share of the total catch available within EEC waters. That has become known and recognised as the total package, and in his opening speech the Minister gave us some assurances on that.
There is no doubt that the industry is still smarting and suffering from the deal carried out with the original six members of the Community on the eve of our accession. The three new members of the Common Market were presented with a fait accompli and a deal in which they had played no part. That was instrumental in Norway opting out. Since the date of entry in 1972, open access to our rich fishing grounds, the 200-mile fisheries zone and the Icelandic waters have been denied to us, and our deep sea fleets, our fishing ports and our processing industries have suffered disastrously.
The industry has been patient and the fishermen have been long-suffering. When I visited Hull I was appalled at the sight of so many hulks and deep sea trawlers rusting on the quaysides. What an awful daily reminder of how one industry has suffered so much because of the unfairness of the 1972 fisheries policy. The picture in that part of Yorkshire and Humberside, including Grimsby, represents a wide area of disaffection in the Community. In Hull in 1973, 11,000 people were employed in the fishing industry. In 1976 the number dropped to 8,600. Today the estimate is 4,000, and the number is still falling. There is concern in this major traditional port that the industry and its freezer trawer fleet will be completely wiped out. In the last four years alone, the number of freezer and fresher vessels has slumped from 75 to 25. Sea-going personnel have dropped from 2,131 to 932, with repercussive effects on the shore-based industries. This port is rapidly bleeding to death. It desperately needs help, and it needs it now.

Mr. John Townend: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. However, does he agree that the Government in which he was a Minister had the opportunity to deal with the problem at the time of renegotiation?

Mr. Mason: I shall not apportion blame during the course of the debate. If I did that, the hon. Gentleman and his Government of 1972 might have to face the fact that they took us into the Common Market. It was their fisheries policy then. A fait accompli was placed before them the day before we entered the Community. The hon. Gentleman

must accept his share of the responsibility. Since that date all parties in the industry and all parties in Parliament have stood firmly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) in his efforts to get a proper common fisheries deal for the United Kingdom. So far, we are giving the Minister that support. Let us not start to apportion blame.
It is not only Hull that is affected. Aberdeen, which is also a deep sea fishing port, is suffering likewise. In 1976 there were 120 trawlers in Aberdeen. In January 1979 the figure dropped to 80, and it is now 53. Crewing jobs have fallen from 1,200 in 1975 to 520 now. The British Trawler Federation says that the trawler fleet has slumped from 489 in 1974 to fewer than 150 now. In Lowestoft, such is the squeeze on the industry that the crewmen and the fishermen, whose wages come from the catch share money, are being asked, because of mounting fuel costs and other operating costs, to provide cash from their pay to keep vessels operative. They are being asked to take a reduction in pay of £70 per man per trip.
I mention those examples simply to indicate that the industry is riddled with trauma and agonising decisions on how to stay afloat. How can the deep sea fleet be held? In Hull, even the present diminished fleet has little to do and hardly anywhere to fish. After six freezer vessels have taken their North-East Arctic quota this year, which each can do in one trip, there is nowhere for the vessels to fish. The quota is so small that most freezer vessels will not be able to make a trip.
If the EEC-Canadian agreement is finally ratified, what are the prospects of United Kingdom fishermen obtaining increased rights to fish in their waters, especially for a cod quota? If the Canadians, seeking outlets for their cod production, have relatively free access to the Common Market, which in effect will mean the United Kingdom, and there is no quid pro quo for our fishermen or high tariff levels against those fishing ports, it could be the final blow to the deep sea fleet.
There should be an interim restructuring programme. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been a little more optimistic today


and would have given some optimism to the fleet as a whole, although the deep sea trawler fleet is most in danger of extinction. According to the last report of the White Fish Authority, by the end of October 1978 all available grant funds for 1979–80 were committed, causing a stoppage in new orders at home, frustration to the fishermen and a serious threat to our boatyards and forcing some owners to buy foreign vessels. Tragically, that does not fit into a plan of what types of fleets are required.
The White Fish Authority has put forward ideas on how restructuring might begin. I think that they are worth considering. First, there should be an examination of where surplus vessels or surplus tonnage are likely to be, with financial inducements to remove the surplus tonnage, if necessary. We should start to modernise the fleets with an enlarged grants and loans scheme. We should establish a system of control over the shape and size of the fishing fleets. We should introduce a licensing scheme for all vessels, because if public money is to be afforded for the resuscitation of the fishing industry there must be public accountability. Licensing, therefore, is essential. Indeed, strict licensing control would ensure that vessels that caused imbalance and did not fit into the national plan for a balanced, modern fishing fleet were not ordered and introduced into the fleets.
The Government should tell the industry that that is the sort of programme that they have in mind. The industry badly needs a fillip and a boost to get itself out of the doldrums. In the meantime, bearing in mind the problems in the deep sea fishing ports, why cannot a premium be considered now? I appreciate the Government's scheme to finance exploratory voyages—a £443,000 programme—but cannot more be done in this respect? That, too, would help a few more vessels to continue working.
I turn now to the question of aids to our fishermen. The Secretary of State is aware of this subject because it was covered at Question Time and he has referred to it today. There is a strong suspicion among our fishermen that a number of their fishing competitors get hidden subsidies. I know that it is difficult to find

proof of that, having spent some time in the Board of Trade, but the latest review by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development reveals many forms of aid that member States give to their fishing industries quite openly. These are not hidden subsidies. There are construction aids. They do more than we do in regard to exploratory voyages. There are grants to the fish processing industries, scrapping premiums, a temporary laying-up stystem and even aids to sales promotion—to mention just a few items.
There is thus a great deal of aid going to our rivals, and it is incumbent upon the Government, having made an examination of the various schemes of assistance, to explain to us now at what cost we could all benefit from adopting similar aid schemes. We have to recognise that the French, the German and the Dutch fleets are modernising with such aids while our fleets are ageing and diminishing.
I now turn to the issue that has caused the recent and most extreme anxiety in the industry and is affecting all fleets—deep sea, middle distance and inshore. Although the scramble for mackerel has helped to some degree, it is really a small stop-gap in relation to the whole of the fishing industry. The main question that is now causing concern is that of cheap fish imports. This is where the real damage has been done in recent times—altering the picture of the fishing industry from one of waiting to one of urgency.
To take Grimsby as an example, the scale of cheap Continental imports, mainly from Holland, flooding into that port is quite worrying. Over one weekend, 41 Continental container trucks came in. One can understand the friction that this is causing between the fishermen and the merchants. The danger is that it will hasten the death of the home fleet. With merchants and processors becoming dependent on cheaper Continental fish, the home fleet—or the port fleet—dies as a result through loss of markets and trade, and is therefore at the mercy of foreigners. Grimsby fishermen cannot compete with these cheap imports. It is far too costly for them to steam out to Danish or German coastal waters and back and hope to compete against cheap imports.
Scottish fishermen tell the same story. In Aberdeen one weekend there were 38


wagon loads of fish from the Continent—Dutch and Danish cod. In Scotland it has now become known as black cod. The anger of our fishermen is such that there is talk of pickets and of blockading the ports to stop the imports from coming in.
The picture is serious, and the right hon. Gentleman referred to some of the figures. Let me bring him up to date as far as I can. In the last two years, British landings of cod have slumped from 147,000 tonnes to 105,000 tonnes, while in the same period imports have risen from 109,000 tonnes to 184,000 tonnes. In October of last year alone, the United Kingdom's deficit in the trade balance of fish products rose to £21 million and the trade gap was £145 million for the first 10 months of 1979—a record deficit. This is a major problem and it will have to be tackled.
Although the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to it, related to this problem are the EEC's official withdrawal prices, which are kept down to unrealistic levels. Allied with the operations of Continental fleets—especially that of the Germans, who cheated on the Berlin agreement quotas—these measures are threatening the immediate future of our fishing fleets.
But the story does not end there. The Tokyo round of trade talks agreed that an additional 10,000 tonnes of cod must come into the Common Market from third countries, of which the United Kingdom must take 81 per cent. The tariff was also reduced by 50 per cent., from 18 per cent. to 9 per cent. If this goes on, it will have disastrous consequences in many ports.
I am led to believe that the industry and the fish buyers, who are both seriously concerned about the problem, could agree on a system of autonomous withdrawal prices, higher than the Common Market official withdrawal prices but closer to viability requirements. This would, of course, necessitate the provision of some Government cash, some financial support for the operation, but I believe that some of our Common Market partners are already doing this. I hope, therefore, that it will be looked at.
I do not think that there is any doubt but that, because of recent events, the industry feels that it is at a crucial stage. It feels that cash injections are necessary.

It is beginning to despair. The inshore men are in a desperate plight. They represent the bulk of the industry, and they need cash now.
I turn next to the main problem of the common fisheries policy and that of total allowable catches. In 1977 the total EEC fish tonnage to be allocated to the EEC countries was estimated at 2,254,000 tonnes. We asked for 962,000 tonnes and were offered 540,000 tonnes. That was the first insult. My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford had disagreed. Negotiations were suspended. I believe that the phrase "stopping the clock" was used. In January 1978 the Commission came up with a better offer—a slight increase in our TAC, but including horse mackerel. We are not interested only in the percentage. The species matter as well. Again there was no agreement. Our share was too small and there was no movement on the basic issue of coastal and zonal preferences. During all this time, the Government were getting the backing of industry and Parliament.
The Minister, on taking office, created an impression that he, too, would stand firm for the total package. He clearly stated that he wanted a fair and lasting settlement for British fishermen. Credit is due to him. He stood firm on conservation. He has taken measures for which he was criticised in Common Market councils. We believed that he was right and we backed him. He has also been prepared to support the arrest of foreign trawlers when they have breached our conservation measures. He was right on that as well.
So far so good, but in the latter half of 1979 the Minister became engaged in a series of bilateral talks with EEC Fisheries Ministers. We have never yet had a full report on his objectives in that respect. This is where suspicions of his motives have begun to creep in, because a number of deals have been made between the EEC and third countries.
The deal with Senegal benefits the French but is no good to us. It also benefits the Germans. The Guinea-Bissau deal with the EEC again brought no benefit to Britain. Then there is the framework agreement with Spain. The Spanish are likely to start fishing in our waters. Even the Faroes agreement and the Canadian agreement are being severely criticised. All these agreements


are benefiting our competitors but are of little benefit to us. It would appear that the right hon. Gentleman's firm stand has given way to a conciliatory approach. The industry suspects that there is a piecemeal policy of giving way and is concerned that he has begun to slip from the total package.

Mr. Peter Walker: Several of the deals mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were agreed by my predecessor and came into operation under him. It is remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman should accuse me of giving way by signing something to which my predecessor agreed. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the fishing industry's concern about a piecemeal approach. I meet representatives of the industry constantly. I meet them before every negotiation and during negotiations, but that point has never been put to me by them.

Mr. Mason: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that the Senegal agreement was made after we left office and that that applies also to the Guinea-Bissau deal. What is more, the Canadian deal has been further ratified. Our voyages to Canadian waters are rare. I believe that we only allowed one trip, and we should like a better quid pro quo on that.
There is a belief that the right hon. Gentleman has concurred in Common Market fisheries deals with third countries, a number of which have benefited the French and the Germans but not Britain. Those cards have been played, but as yet the Common Market has not moved an inch in our direction. Because of that, I asked the Minister to listen to presentation of the case as seen by many in the industry. They fear that there has been a sell-out. There are strong suspicions of that in the industry and they must be dispelled.
I give credit to the right hon. Gentleman for the other aspect of the major paper. We have started, in a small way, a catch reporting system. From 1 January of this year, EEC States are obliged to inform the Commission of catches and landings. In July the system will be developed, necessitating more detailed reports to be filed by skippers. It is a start, but it is insufficient. There will have to be more detailed control of catch re-

porting, such as maintaining a log book of catches and indicating where the fish were caught, the gear used, the quantities landed and whether on ship or on shore. It will be mandatory for member States to collate reports, which must be sent to the Commission monthly so that all other member States can be informed. Licensing must be part of this framework, so that licences are dependent upon accurate reporting. The sanction would be withdrawal of a licence for any breach of the catch reporting agreement.
The main battle has still to be fought, and that is to obtain our key demand for exclusive and preferential zones with a much increased British share of the right species for British fishermen. That is the main task for the right hon. Gentleman. If that remains his objective, he will receive the united support of the industry and the House. We want no sell-out, no piecemeal give-away and no moves on agreements without the House first being consulted.
We are worried that in a long, drawn-out struggle, the British position might be watered down in some way. If it is, Parliament will not stand for it. Our European partners must accept this as a reality. If they do not, not only will they cause problems for Britain, but they will cause problems for the continuity and stability of the Common Market itself."—[Official Report, 15 June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 1239.]
Those were the words of the Minister of State and we stand by that view. I hope that the Minister will reaffirm that posture and repeat that pledge tonight, because I must warn him that just as most hon. Members will not stand for the present common agricultural policy's ruination of our Budget and its serious consequences for the consumer, so they will not stand for a raw deal on fisheries policy.
The results of these two tests will determine, in the early 1980s, whether Britain stays in the EEC or whether withdrawal is again seriously contemplated. These issues are mainly the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he understands the force of that message from the House and from the British people today.

Sir Walter Clegg: I listened with great care to the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). Whilst I agree with a great deal of what


he said, I do not agree that the Minister has began to slip in his approach to these matters. I have found no criticism of my right hon. Friend. I was with the fishermen after they returned from one of these meetings and they said that he had been just as tough as the previous Minister.
There can be no doubt that our fishing industry is in a parlous state. Instead of arguing from a general point of view, I should like to argue from the particular and speak about my own port of Fleetwood, which the Minister had the opportunity to visit last October. For the last two years Fleetwood has been fighting like hell to maintain its position and it is a great credit to the port that it has managed to stay alive in spite of all the difficulties that it has faced.
That has not been done without a great deal of co-operation between many different sides of the industry. I have never known co-operation as great as it is at the moment. For example, had we not been able to reduce the number of dockers and introduce new methods of landing, Fleetwood would have been out of action by now. The owners have had to send their ships to fish for mackerel at various times of the year and try to find other fishing grounds for the rest of the year.
I think that I speak not only for Fleetwood but for the whole of the industry when I say that it has not sat on its backside in the face of problems but has tried hard to overcome them. The difference between the fishing industry and some other industries is that the circumstances in which it has had to work have not been of its choosing. Outside decisions have affected the industry.
The decision that has affected fishermen most—especially deep-sea fishermen—has been the loss of deep-sea waters. Being realistic, it is hard to see how, in future, we shall be able to replace those waters, whether we are in the EEC or out of it. The loss of Icelandic waters was crucial for Fleetwood, more crucial than our entry into the EEC. Had we not entered the Community it might have been possible to obtain a better deal with Iceland, but such was the feeling between Iceland and ourselves at the time that I doubt it. The Minister and everyone in the House must face the fact that the future for the deep-sea fleet is bleak. It

is difficult to see where the laid-up trawlers and the new big deep-sea trawlers will be able to fish.
That brings me to the present. I have never known such a gloomy report from the British Fishing Federation as that which we have received to-day.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When the Select Committee made its investigation into the fishing industry, it never received a satisfactory answer from the owners of the deep-sea fleet to the question why they ignored the waters of the Falkland Islands, which contain some of the richest supplies of hake in the world. It was believed that the reason for that was that the deep-sea fishermen did not want to jeopardise any compensation that might be forthcoming from the loss of Icelandic fishing grounds. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?

Sir W. Clegg: Yes, I would. That has often been mentioned. The trouble about the Argentine is that the fishermen could easily become involved in similar problems there because those waters are in dispute with the Argentine Government. Owners would not want to equip ships and send them out there if there were the possibility of an Argentinian cod war. We did not do so well in the last cod war, which was much nearer our own shores. Therefore, I cannot seeowners taking the risk of sending a fleet of vessels out there. There are other problems regarding the hake that is caught out there. I am told by those who have been out there that the hake is of a fluffy quality which is not always acceptable to the British housewife.
The Minister now has a great problem on his hands. I do not think that we can afford to wait much longer before help is given to the industry. As my right hon. Friend said, we look forward to a possible settlement of the common fisheries policy this year. I personally believe that it will be hard to obtain a settlement, and it would be more realistic to look upon it in that light.
Our partners in the EEC are being particularly bloody-minded—especially the French, who have a great deal to lose if the Spaniards are involved in the fisheries policies as it now stands. I hope that the Minister will consider what help can be given, as requested by the


British Fisheries Federation and other sectors of the industry. Restructuring is necessary.
Paragraph 3(d) of the explanatory memorandum says:
The Commission points out that the Council should decide, in the near future, whether Community measures and Community financial assistance should be used to help the industry adapt to the situation and whether common action should be taken to restructure inshore fisheries and promote agriculture.
Restructuring is needed now. We cannot see the final pattern of a common fisheries policy, but we can see far enough ahead for the deep-sea industry to understand and recognise the parameters in which it is capable of working.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the suggestions that have been made today. I must put in a word for the fishermen, who have lost out when we consider the compensation that has been paid in other industries such as steel and shipbuilding. Handsome compensation payments have been offered to those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own because the industry in which they worked has been forced to run down. There is no such compensation for fishermen. That stems largely from the way in which fishermen have been paid in the past. In the normal arrangements there are no redundancy payments for share fishermen.
The time has come to restructure the industry. We must take into account all the factors of which we are aware. We should press the Community for financial help to restructure it. Time is no longer on our side.

Mr. J. Grimond: This is the first fisheries debate that we have had for a long time. It is an exceedingly short debate. We are faced with a weight of documents, which may be compared with that of a decent sized cod. Many fishermen would say that the documents are not nearly so valuable as the cod, chiefly because they are not enforced.
The Government have been unable to reveal their concrete proposals for helping the industry in its serious plight. I hope that they will give an undertaking that we shall be allowed a longer debate when their proposals are finally brought

before the House. Secondly, I hope that an undertaking will be forthcoming that they will bring forward their proposals for helping the industry at the earliest possible moment.
In the short time that is available, I shall mention one or two specific and urgent matters. I do so in the knowledge that there are many other important issues, including longer-term matters such as limits and regional schemes.
First, the fund that the Scottish fishermen set up—a levy that they themselves laid upon the boats—is exhausted. What proposals do the Government have for replacing that fund? It may be said that there is an EEC fund. However, prices within that fund are at such a low level that no fisherman, without receiving a subsidy and not sticking to the quotas, could make a living. The extent of subsidies in other countries and the extent of the breaking of quota agreements is illustrated by the fact that the EEC is able to work within its fund.
Secondly, under present pricing arrangements and quotas there is no means by which the pursers that have been recently built under grant and loan schemes can possibly repay their capital obligations. I could give the House the figures, but that would take up time which is not available.
Broadly speaking, a purser needs to be making a minimum of £7,000 a week to pay its bare obligations. Of course, it cannot fish every week because of weather conditions. At present, there is no means for these vessels to meet their obligations. In addition, operators are facing enormously increased costs. Fuel for the pursers is now costing over £800 a week. What are the Government's proposals? There are heavy basic obligations and at present they cannot be met.
Thirdly, I have been having considerable correspondence with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesy that he has shown and the length of his letters. The correspondence has dealt chiefly with quotas.
The quota arrangement allows a catch of 26 cwt., of which 17 cwt. may be of one species. A vessel may decide to take 17 cwt. of whiting. It may do that because whiting are thick on the ground. That vessel will be able to catch, for


example, 9 cwt. of haddock. However, when it puts to sea to catch haddock it may find that there is a great deal of whiting. The Minister of State knows that. He represents a fishing constituency. He knows that fish swim about together. In the example that I have given, there may come up in the nets a mixed bag of whiting and haddock. The fishermen have to dump all the whiting into the sea. That is not conservation; it is lunacy.
I am told by the Secretary of State that a degree of flexibility has been introduced into the scheme. However, there is not nearly enough flexibility. I urge the Government to go further and to experiment with a totally flexible scheme. I am told that the issue has been discussed with the fishermen. They confirm that that is so. However, I am told that they did not agree with the proposals that were put forward. They may have discussed the issue, but it is not true that they came to an agreement.
Fourthly, Shetland is asking for a small quota of herring to be allowed to be caught in its waters within the 12-mile limit by Shetland boats and to be landed at Shetland ports. There is considerable evidence that there are enough herring to allow such an arrangement. Monitoring could take place so long as the arrangement was confined to Shetland boats and ports. The Dutch are offering herring and it would be interesting to know where they are catching them.
There are many other important issues—for example, limits and anomalies. It may strike the outsider that it is anomalous that the fishing industry is asking for higher quotas when it is sometimes unable to sell its present catches. There is that difficulty because of imports. These are imports that must be subsidised.
There is a lack of confidence within the industry about the scientific knowledge on which the Government's policies are based. It is rightly said that conservation policies must be based upon scientific appraisal. However, all the fishermen to whom I have spoken have become doubtful about the realism of the advice offered to the Government. There is a complete lack of confidence in the statistics and in the measures available to

enforce even the regulations that are agreed with the Common Market.
We are watching a steady rundown of the industry. That includes the trawlers and extends to inshore fishing. At the same time, other countries that have no real interest in the long-term viability of fishing are increasing their activities. They often regard the North Sea as a bonanza and take the view that they need not trouble about it once the bonanza is over. For Britain it is an essential and long-term interest. However, every year our fleets are running down. That means that in some respects our bargaining powers are being eroded. People are leaving fishing. If fishing should cease, there are many communities that will cease altogether.
I beg the Government to do all that they can to put these matters right within their own powers. Secondly, I beg them to go to the Common Market to impress upon it that the present situation is damaging to the EEC's reputation in the eyes of the House of Commons and, I think, of the British public.
I hope that the Government will soon be able to tell us of their concrete proposals to help the industry. When they do so, we shall be able to have a proper debate on the industry's future.

Mr. Alex Pollock: There is a cruel and bizarre irony in the fact that we are debating Community fishery documents at a time of crisis within the fishing industry, especially in Scotland. There is real fear about whether there is to be any future for our fishermen to enjoy.
I welcome the debate—the first fisheries debate for some time—as it gives the House and the Government an opportunity to reaffirm their faith in and support for our fleet. Such a demonstration of support is desperately awaited by men who now find that their livelihood is being more and more determined by forces over which they have no control. My right hon. Friend the Minister has referred to soaring fuel and maintenance costs, high interest rates, further restrictions and the deep suspicions in the minds of our fishermen about import abuse. All that results in an atmosphere of deep alarm. The fishermen are worried about whether they can survive the next


few months, let alone further into the 1980s.
That is why I believe that the Government, in commenting upon their position in relation to the common fisheries policy, must not only make a declaration of intent about the future but give concrete evidence of interim support for the whole industry. In effect, I urge the Government to recognise that the dialogue within Europe must continue in the longer term with a view to securing a sensible CFP which recognises our major role. In the shorter term, urgent action must be taken at national level so that we can retain the capacity to fulfil that role. While I welcome the declared intentions of the Government in relation to the document, I fear that our bargaining position could be permanently jeopardised if there was such a rundown of our home fleet that the Europeans could look at us across the bargaining table and say "You may have a large percentage of the European pond but you have a tiny percentage of the European fleet."
We must not allow ourselves to be manoeuvred into such a position. Having witnessed the impressive demonstration at Peterhead recently, I feel able to assure the Government that the mood of the fishing industry is one of anger—anger born out of deep fear. It is my privilege to represent a proud part of our fishing inheritance on the Moray coast. Over many generations, those men have created a work effort based on hard, dedicated work and an acceptance of hardship and risk. They cannot even comprehend the work-shy mentality, and they have no real desire for a hand-out approach to the industry. Instead, they have a fierce pride in their abilities—a pride that has been badly hurt by the fear that they are not being allowed to compete on open, fair and level terms with their competitors. The need for interim aid is based on getting back to equal terms.
In the longer term, I believe that there will be an acceptance within the industry of restructuring. The industry will play a responsible part in the achievement of such future plans. Meanwhile, the meeting in Peterhead was a cry from the heart of the Scottish fishing industry. It was a cry for those in real, immediate and urgent peril on the sea. It is a cry that the Government dare not ignore.

Mr. Donald Stewart: If the Government believe that the mere holding of this debate will assuage the anger of the fishermen, they are in for a rude awakening. They will have to come forward with offers to help the industry out of its critical position. Only 12 months ago the Prime Minister was touring in the North-East of Scotland. She promised that on the return of a Tory Government she would personally see that the fishing industry had high priority. If the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock) and others representing that area were returned in the election because that promise was taken at face value, their seats will be in grave danger at the next election.
The extension of the fishing limit to 200 miles off Iceland, the Farce Isles, Norway and Canada has meant that they have been successful in preserving stocks. They have surplus fish beyond their requirements, which they can land here as a dumping ground. The position in the United Kingdom's 200-mile limit can only be described as farcical. Among the victims of that farce are the fishermen of Scotland. While fish stocks of other nations of the North Atlantic have been preserved because their catches are strictly controlled, we have a free-for-all around our shores. In fact, it is worse than a free-for-all. Our men have to abide by strict quotas; they are allowed so many boxes of cod, haddock, and so on. As the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) pointed out, this could lead to chronic wastage at sea.
What is happening to the vessels of our EEC partners, which we were obliged to allow into our waters? They do not have their catches monitored. Seldom, if ever, are they boarded by our fishery protection vessels, and nobody checks what they land in their home ports. It is no wonder that 600 fishermen in Peterhead this month wanted to know why other countries inside and outside the EEC had so much fish to spare when the United Kingdom fleet had greatly reduced its efforts to comply with international quotas drawn up for conservation reasons.
It is entirely reasonable for the British Fishing Federation to say that in the last few years there has been little sign that Britain's European partners have a real


will to conserve and that quotas are treated by other member States with blatant—sometimes admitted—disdain. What will the Minister say about the purser "St. Loman" vessel from Norway, which was arrested last November? She had a catch of mackerel off the Northern Isles a week after the catching season was supposed to have stopped. The vessel had 400 tonnes of mackerel on board, although the quota for a vessel of that size is 220 tonnes. What will the Minister say about the 400 boxes of herring on sale at Boulogne fish market? The Government, on the pretext that they would incur EEC reprisals, refuse to grant exemption to the one vessel in the Western Isles fleet that has always caught herring by drift net—a conservation method in itself.
If we cannot annoy the EEC to the extent of giving exemption to one vessel, we are pawns in the Common Market. The Government have ignored the warnings of the danger to the herring shoals in the North Sea and the Minch. Now, mackerel are in danger of going the same way. Earlier in the debate, aspersion was cast on the scientific evidence. For years we had been warned by such scientific evidence, but no action was taken until it was too late.
No doubt, when such fine edible fish are gone, the Government will accept the quotas of the Common Market. They have been conned—that is the only word for it. As the British Fishing Federation says,
The Commission were only able to make the most recent (1978) proposals appear comparable by allocating to the UK a substantial pecentage of a species never before the subject of total allowable catch or quota allocations…100,000 tonnes of horse mackerel—a bony fish totally unacceptable for human consumption in Europe".
I was brought up in a fishing port and I spent my days going around the quays. Horse mackerel were even rejected by the seagulls; they were pretty hungry. That is the fish of which the EEC graciously permits our fishermen to catch 100,000 tonnes. Iii is a fish that nobody else wants. How ridiculous!
The Government should also tell the fishermen what they have in mind when Spain eventually joins the EEC. What allocation of our fish will go to Spain? Spain has one of the largest fishing fleets

in the world, and our fishermen have a right to know. About £7·5 million worth of prawns are in cold storage and cannot be moved. Because the Spaniards cannot get into our waters for prawns, they have put a ban on prawns entering Spain. The Government should take cognisance of that fact and discuss the matter with the Spanish Government.
What will the Government do to ease the dangerous situation in the fishing industry? They should adopt the policy of my party, for a 200-mile limit with an inner exclusive 50-mile limit. It should be open to negotiation, subject to strict licensing. The Government should use some of Scotland's money from oil to help the fishing industry and to see it through the present difficult period. If the Government made a cash injection into the minimum price scheme now, it would be peanuts compared with the money that has been poured into British Leyland and into the BSC for many years.
I see from an article in the current edition of Fishing News that the Minister has said that any aid would be linked to a settlement of the common fisheries policy. He has said that that settlement might take place in June. That is totally unacceptable. The industry is desperate. It needs assistance now, and it should get it. It is impossible to reach a satisfactory fisheries policy within the EEC. The fisheries policy can be likened to the agricultural policy. If a policy is agreed, it will be to the detriment of our fishing industry.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the activities of the EEC have helped to keep Poles and other Eastern European countries out of industrial fishing in the North Sea?

Mr. Stewart: The countries that stayed outside the EEC have limits of 200 miles. They are in full control of their fishing limits. They have more control over their waters. Our fishermen will not fade away quietly. The threat of independent action should not be ignored. Their determination to survive exceeds that of the steel workers, although they have no redundancy payments waiting for them.
Without fishing, there is no future for them, for their children or for the community. A well-disciplined demonstration in 1975 showed what fishermen could do. The Government should take note.


They must give these men the help that they desperately need and to which they are entitled.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the present state of the fishing industry. There is almost universal agreement that the industry is passing through the worst crisis that anyone in it can remember. There has been a loss of waters and of vessels. The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) made that point, but the situation in Aberdeen is worse than he imagines. The fishing industry also faces the rising cost of fuel.
We all hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that the Government have a package that will allow the industry to remain intact until the common fisheries policy is renegotiated. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock) rightly pointed out that the industry may collapse before a settlement has been reached or while the policy is being renegotiated. Our EEC partners may ask why we are complaining if our fleet is diminishing all the time. That is why we want a package that will include financial support and will keep the industry intact. When the common fisheries policy has been renegotiated, our fishing industry will be able to take advantage of the opportunities that will arise.
There are five areas that demand urgent action. The first may be small in some ways. I refer to the fact that the White Fish Authority wants to increase its levy. The Government should not accept that proposal. The sum of £1·2 million is an enormous burden on the industry at any time. When the fishing industry is facing such a crisis, the authority should not put such a burden on it. It is absolutely insane to levy £1·2 million and to come forward with Government help at the same time. That makes no sense. The right hon. Member for Barnsley spoke of giving a fillip to the industry. That is quite right. It would be a small but appreciated fillip if the Government abandoned this proposal. We all have to tighten our belts. If the fishing industry has to tighten its belt, why should the White Fish Authority not do the same? If a burden is to be placed on another body, it should be placed on a

non-wealth-producing quango rather than on a wealth-producing industry.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should not allow his enthusiasm to go too far. He should not condemn the White Fish Authority in that way. The WFA is well respected by the industry, although relations are not good at present. He should not spoil a good case.

Mr. Sproat: I was unaware that I had uttered one word of criticism about the WFA. I simply said that if there were a choice between placing a burden on a wealth-producing industry or on a non-wealth-producing quango, I would put it on the quango. I agree that the WFA does excellent work. However, I cannot recommend that it should benefit at the expense of the industry.
Secondly, I urge my right hon. Friend to continue with his vigorous and determined drive to reach an early settlement of the common fisheries policy. So far, his approach could be described as "toughness without truculence". I am sure that he is right to continue with that toughness. However, there are not many people in the fishing industry who are optimistic that the common fisheries policy will be renegotiated by June, or even later this summer. I hope that it is negotiated by then. There will shortly be elections in France and Germany. It is in their interests to spin the negotiations out until our fleet has been diminished. Therefore, I am not optimistic about an early settlement.
We must continue with all the vigour and drive at our command. I agree with the remarks of my right hon. Friend, and I am sure that the fishing industry will be behind him as long as he sticks to exclusive zones, proper enforcement and a fair quota that bears some relation to the proportion that we put in.
Thirdly, I am concerned about the importation of foreign subsidised fish. My right hon. Friend was extremely helpful and he gave us some new statistics. If the French—yet again—break the regulations by subsidising fishing fuel, we should consider banning such foreign fish. Fair competition is one thing, but it is wrong that our industry should suffer the threat of decimation simply because the French Government subsidise their industry in contravention of EEC rules.
That is not particularly extraordinary. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade is now trying to ban the import of American carpet yarns, because the American Government are subsidising that industry. If unfair competition is a good reason for imposing a ban in one area, surely similar action should be taken towards the fishing industry. We understand the tightrope upon which my right hon. Friend and the Minister are walking. They do not want to be offensive and non-communautaire towards our partners while they fight for our industry.
We recognise that my right hon. Friend's attitude towards the European Community has enabled us to achieve what has been achieved. We do not want to jeopardise that. At the same time, we must insist on competition being on equal terms.
The fourth area for urgent action is the restructuring of the fleet. My right hon. Friend said that it should wait until the CFP was renegotiated. We understand that much of the shape and size of the fleet depends on those renegotiations. However, if only to give confidence to the fleet for the future, we should take the earliest opportunity for talks between the industry and the Government on the surplus requirement and the possible shape and size of the fleet. We know the direction in which we are going in regard to the CFP.
It is essential to consider restructuring as soon as possible. Our British fleet is already being restructured, but by default. Many vessels are being tied up. Restructuring is taking place without planning. Let us at least try to impose a plan.
My fifth point concerns cash injection to the industry. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State can tell us that in principle the Government have not ruled that out. I do not expect him to be specific and say that it will be in the form of a scrapping subsidy, a lay-up subsidy or a price support scheme. The industry is still putting its ideas forward to the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend will say that he accepts in principle that the industry is entitled to cash support to see it through these terrible times, before the CFP is renegotiated.
Above all, the industry needs cash and confidence. I hope that my hon. Friend will reassure us that he can offer both.

Mr. James Johnson: I am sorry that the Minister is not here. I wish to tell him to his face that I always find him urbane, courteous and able, and, on behalf of the Hull delegation that he met a short while ago, I wish to thank him. However, despite all his charm and ability, I do not believe that it is possible for him to take the action that the industry needs—and especially the distant water fleet of my own city of Hull. He is bound hand and foot by two shackles—EEC policy and the fact that the Government will not use public money to aid the industry. His leader talks emotively about taxpayers' money. We are seeing cuts left, right and centre—particularly in education and local government. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) was optimistic about what he euphemistically called a cash injection. I do not share that optimism.

Mr. David Myles: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government demonstrated that they will give aid to an industry by their considerable cash injection into hill farming not long ago?

Mr. Johnson: I shall not be led astray by such comments. I am speaking for my distant water port of Hull. I want aid on behalf of everyone in that industry to get our vessels back to sea. If they cannot go back to sea and catch fish, I wish to see those trawlers put in moth-balls for the duration and receive payments to indemnify and compensate them.
I have a feeling of deja vu when I am told that the previous debate on this matter was two years ago. It fills a Member from Hull with almost inspissated gloom. I hope that we shall have some cheerful news from the Minister.
I shall be brief, as many hon. Members wish to speak, and I know how infuriating it is to wait while someone talks on and on.
I wish to ask some questions to find out what the Government intend to do. The Minister is well aware of the industry's problems. He has a deep knowledge of them. What proposals does he have to solve them quickly in order to salvage this industry? He may be able to help the inshore and middle water


people, but I do not see what he can do to help my people in Hull.
The severity of our plight has been mentioned. We have 25 freezers and distant water vessels, which are now in dock. Not so many years ago, when I first went to Hull, we had 150 of those big vessels. The 25 vessels remaining have no work. We heard statistics earlier about fishermen who have lost their jobs in Hull.
The Minister seemed optimistic about his bilateral talks with countries such as West Germany and France. Perhaps we shall hear soon about the results. The right hon. Gentleman appears to suggest that in the not-too-distant future there is the possibility of a change in the CFP. How long must we wait? If a CFP settlement were reached tomorrow, it would be of little benefit to our people in the Hull docks. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the long-term financial benefits that may accrue will be in time to save our 25 boats in Hull?
I do not need to tell the House about the black mood of bitterness that is blowing up in the industry among deck-hands and owners. Imports are soaring, and we have tighter controls and higher costs. I wish to quote from my local paper, the Hull Daily Mail. On 11 February, under the headline
Fish bosses seek cash lifeline",
Tom Boyd junior, president of Hull Vessel Owners Association, who is well known to most fishing Members, said:
We are selling our assets in an endeavour to stay in existence".
That emphasises the desperate plight of the Hull-based freezer industry. The Tory Government are allowing it to be destroyed, while our Common Market partners are taking substantial steps to keep their fleets in existence. They will benefit if and when the CFP is changed.
Our so-called partners, particularly the French, enjoy subsidies. They ignore conservation measures. It is no wonder that not only Humberside complains bitterly but also a number of well-known leaders north of the Tweed. It cannot be denied that such men know what they are talking about. I refer to such skippers as Willy Hay, Gilbert

Buchan and Jim Lovie. I need not go too far north of the Tweed to find people, even those fishing in better inshore conditions, who are just as bitter as we are.
Why are Humberside men not allowed to do what the German fleets are doing? They openly admit that they have caught 100,000 tonnes of cod off the coast of Greenland and that there is a tacit agreement between the Germans and the Danes. Why cannot we go there too? Why cannot the Minister, with all his charm and ability, negotiate with the Danes and the Canadians?
Why will the Government not pay compensation in the form of lay-up payments while our boats in Hull are unable to fish? Why cannot they mothball our 25 big vessels and pay our people until the new common fisheries policy allows us to go out once again and catch fish?
If we go out of existence—as we shall, unless things alter—the other eight nations of the EEC, including Luxembourg, will simply wait until 1982, when our fishery resources will fill their nets as a matter of course. We shall not then have the boats to catch fish.
Finally, if our fleet of 25 distant water boats goes, the port of Hull will close. This means more than jobs. I have heard tonight two moving speeches by hon. Members from north of the Tweed, and they have described what will happen to their communities. What about Hull? Fishing is a way of life in Hull and plays a most important role in our community. The sons and daughters of fisherman have made their mark on local politics in the Hull city council and in Humberside affairs generally. The loss of Hull as a port would not be just a physical and financial matter. It is a social matter, and it would bring about a psychological change from which we would all suffer.
I believe that fishermen and miners are the salt of the earth. This is because both face danger in their daily lives. The fishermen go to the Arctic and the miners go down into the bowels of the earth. These men and their wives are a special breed, and their loss is our loss.
I feel tonight as my hon. Friends from Welsh constituencies must have felt a few days ago during the steel debate. If the Government cannot see that, they are men who are eyeless in Gaza.

Mr. David Myles: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) on his bipartisan approach to this debate. I hope that this will enable us to arrive at a constructive and useful solution.
A summary glance through these complicated documents reveals that the management of fisheries is a complicated international exercise involving many States with widely differing objectives and interests. When one is part of a grouping of States, such as the EEC, which is attempting to negotiate for the "common good", there are further complications.
I can fully understand the fishermen's thinking that we have made things far more complicated by joining the EEC. However, I am quite convinced that the EEC complication, while it may make negotiations more difficult, must in the end make our position stronger. We are in a strong negotiating position as the State within the EEC with by far the major fish stocks within our internationally defined waters. We have the most efficient, modern and expert capability to catch fish. We lead the way—although the record is not all that good—in conservation of fish stocks and we have markets for fish for human consumption which are larger than those of any of our competitors. Therefore, we negotiate from strength. We must negotiate vigorously in the interest of our whole fishing industry. We must not be sidetracked by other trade considerations.
Our fishing industry is of sufficient importance to the economy—and, dare I say, the political stability—of this country, to gainful employment and to the maintenance of coastal communities to be treated as a priority and in uncomplicated isolation.
What do we require? We must ensure urgently that while all the political considerations and negotiations are continuing the industry is maintained in a healthy and viable condition. We must ensure that we do not finally arrive at a solution to our problems and then find ourselves with no catching capacity and no fish to catch.
There is no doubt that parts of the industry are going through very difficult times. The more established skipper owners, whose boats are older and fully

paid up, may be able to survive. They have seen the ups and downs of the industry before, and perhaps they are more experienced. My main worry is for the young men who have recently acquired boats with higher power and increased catching capacity but with the same crew strength. With decreasing quotas per man per week and increasing costs of fuel, ropes, nets and interest charges, they could be put in a position in which it will not pay them to go to sea. On the other hand, the cost of interest and the capital commitment will mean that they cannot afford to tie up, either.
Added to these difficulties is the effect of imports on our markets. We have heard a lot about this already. If the fishermen cannot sell their quotas, their position will be quite intolerable. What can the Government do? I believe that the industry will be pressing for a market floor—in other words, the jacking up of withdrawal prices to a level that is more realistic in relation to costs. My worry is that if we jack up our home market and withdraw fish for fish meal, we are liable to leave a gap in the market to be filled by more dumped imports. Those imports would then capture a share of our market that we would have great difficulty recovering.
We must take action on subsidised imports. The issue of Fishing News International for February asks "Are big profits made in the black fishery?" It is this black fishery to which I refer. It is possible that action of this kind can be taken temporarily without imports flooding the market. But we must move fast to act on unfair imports.
In referring to unfair imports, I speak of those from States that subsidise the fishing industry in one way or another. We have heard from fishermen and read in fishing newspapers about vessels that have blatantly ignored conservation restrictions. I cite as an example Norway, whose Government have announced at least £77 million in aid for 1980, probably rising to over £100 million, as price support measures have been announced only for the first four months.
The French, already mentioned in the debate, have fuel subsidies and, I believe, also operate on a pound-for-pound basis—or, I suppose, a franc-for-franc basis—a system to assist in funding support for withdrawn fish. The Danes have their


laying-up payments and the Germans their generous package of laying-up and scrapping premiums, underwriting of voyages to unfamiliar grounds for unfamiliar species, and promotional support.
I realise that we, in the past, have funded voyages to unfamiliar grounds for unfamiliar species. I hope that that kind of support can continue. The Dutch have various subsidies and are currently building, irresponsibly, in my view, more new and destructive beam trawlers to add to an already over-expanded fleet. It is most unlikely that there will be sufficient fish for that fleet to catch.
All those countries are giving tangible support to what they see as the future for their fishing fleets. Britain, with so much to lose and so much to recover, threatens to be the least well-equipped to cope with the success that it seeks and that I am confident my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend will achieve from the EEC negotiations.
I must underline the need for urgent action. The meeting that I and my hon. Friends the Members for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock) and for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) had in Peterhead recently with about 700 fishermen was a dramatic demonstration of the strength of feeling within the industry. I must give credit to the leaders in the industry at that meeting. By their calm and reasonable attitude, they defused what could have been a very awkward situation.
The reason why I urge Ministers to take action is that if those reasonable leaders cannot control the more militant elements in the fishing industry a situation could develop in which Ministers, despite their good will, could find that they were fighting on two fronts. That could only weaken our negotiating position. I direct those comments not only to this House but to the fishermen themselves.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends urgently to back the leaders who have shown their credibility. The time is past for political palliatives. We must stand by our fishermen. I only hope that my right hon. Friend's absence from the Front Bench means that he is speaking on the telephone, possibly to the Prime Minister, to find out how he is to live up to her commitment, which I accept,

made during the election campaign. The only way to safeguard the livelihood of the fishing communities and those magnificent people is by getting agreement to an acceptable common fisheries policy very quickly. In the meantime, we must keep the industry going.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I begin with a quotation supplied by the British Fishing Federation which puts in a nutshell our fears about the industry. It says:
At the beginning of 1975, there were 450 trawlers fishing from United Kingdom ports, the finest and most efficient fleet in Europe. Now there are less than 150 left and less than half of them are actually fishing. The rest are laid up and rusting in port. The effect on local communities, particularly Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood and Aberdeen, has been disastrous, with a loss of employment at sea and on shore of at least 25,000 jobs.
That quotation refers only to the difficulties of the trawling fleet. We know that the inshore fleets are also suffering considerable difficulties.
Our last debate on fishing escaped the notice of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I do not blame him for that. He was in his bed. We were up until 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. discussing fishing. In that debate, the Minister of State, who is present on the Government Front Bench today, complained that we were unnecessarily pessimistic and were taking far too gloomy a view. The hon. Gentleman said there were signs on the horizon that showed that the fishng industry was likely to improve over a period of time.
Having taken part in many fishing debates, I accept that we concentrate too much perhaps on the difficulties the industry faces. But we have no alternative. Having conceded that, however, I would say that very little has happened since that last debate just before Christmas to give us any cause for optimism. What has happened has caused us to become more pessimistic.
I wish to make a passing reference to the attempt of the White Fish Authority to have its levy doubled. Later tonight, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs will be reviewing the evidence it took in Aberdeen last week. Next Wednesday, we shall be debating the order that allows the maximum to go up to 5p. It would be wrong to go into details tonight. The


case put by the fishing industry indicates its view of the future. The industry is very concerned and does not know where it is going.
To some extent, though I do not expect many of the fishermen to agree with me, the attack on the White Fish Authority comes because the authority is a target that they can see whereas the rest of the targets are elsewhere. I do not wish to prejudice my judgment by any comments I may make on the size of the levy until that time.
I hope that we do not fall into the trap which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) fell into when he sneeringly described the White Fish Authority as a non-wealth-producing quango. Such sneering language does no service to a body of people who have put a great deal into the fishing industry. The hon. Member may shake his head, but those were his precise words.

Mr. Sproat: It is not a sneer.

Mr. Hughes: It sounded like it. However, I was making only a passing reference to that and I have said enough about it. If we look at what is happening in the industry and read the local and the fishing press, time and again we learn of difficulties. The Press and Journal in Aberdeen recently carried a story concerning the suspension of payments by the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation. The fund concerned is called the minimum price indemnity fund. It allows the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation to make up the difference between the minimum price at which fish should be sold and the actual price at which it is sold in order to ensure that fishermen do not suffer.
In 10 months £330,000 has been paid out, but the fund cannot continue to do that. The organisation established by fishermen for fishermen has been forced to suspend payments. We can understand how difficult it was for the organisation to arrive at that decision, which means that the fishermen have lost much of their income. If £330,000 has been paid out in 10 months, we can see the size of the problem clearly.
The industry is in need of short-term help. I do not mean to disparage Conservative Members when I say that I welcome their help in obtaining short-

term support for the industry because I know that it must go against the grain for them to seek a public subsidy for industry. I welcome their support very sincerely. I am sure, however, that there will be considerable disappointment in the industry at the way in which the Minister opened the debate by saying that the Government would look at the problems and that all issues would be taken into account.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said that he hoped for an answer in principle, if not in detail, tonight. Judging by the way in which the debate was opened, I doubt whether he will even get a commitment on principle tonight. Fishing News has said that aid to the industry is possibly to be linked to a new CFP, but Government must make up their minds. Each time the issue of an oil subsidy or a scrap-and-build subsidy is raised, it is no use the Government saying that they will look at it and that they understand the problems. The Government must stop dangling the fishing industry on the end of a string. The industry feels as if a noose is tied round its neck and that as each month passes the noose gets tighter and tighter. Unless we do something, it will be too late to help the fishing industry.
I am concerned for those who catch the fish. I have known many of them since my boyhood and some of them are relatives of mine on both sides of my family. To them fishing is more a way of life than a job. I am also concerned for the consumer and I would like more fish to be sold. From the consumer's point of view, it would be helpful if the Government could say why, with low prices being paid on the quayside and with cheap imports flooding in, the price of fish is so high in the shops. Who is making a massive profit out of the industry? That profit is not going to the primary producers.
There is no doubt that in the last year or 18 months of the term of office of the previous Labour Government our partners in the EEC were determined to spin out negotiations as long as possible. Their expectation—unfortunately proved to be right—was that there would be a Government of a different political complexion after the general election. I am convinced that our EEC partners went


on delaying matters in the hope that the new Government would be more pliable than the Labour Government were. The hope was that the new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would not be quite so tough as his predecessor.
The Government have now been in power for nine months and in the spirit of our bipartisan approach to fishing matters where we do not quarrel politically I am not yet prepared to pass judgment on the performance of the Government. However, there is a lesson to be learnt. In nine months, all we have achieved is an agreement on total allowable catches. Once more I see our partners in the Community beginning the process they have so successfully carried out since we joined the Common Market of grinding and wearing the Government down. The Minister at the end of the day has had to come back and say that he had reached an agreement on TAC which was in the national interest but that if he had carried on negotiating he might have come away with worse terms. Our EEC partners are attempting to wear us down and weaken us so that eventually the Minister must come back with an agreement which he acknowledges will not be liked by everybody but which might have contained less favourable terms had he pressed the issue further. The result is that we have had to accept something which is less than best.
I hope that the Government will firmly announce that they will not weaken but that they will stand firm. The Government must impose a deadline for a resolution of the matter. Perhaps they should call in Lord Carrington, who seems to have been successful at imposing deadlines in another context. If our Community partners think that if they go on long enough they will wear us down, they will try to do that. But if we say that the matter must be settled by June or July and that unless it is settled we will take unilateral action, I believe that it will bring our partners to heel and bring them to their senses.
I am concerned about catch reporting, which is allied to the matter of the TAC. The Government, Back Benchers and the industry have ample evidence that the quota system has not worked out on the basis of catch reporting. The Minister

says that we have made one big improvement in securing monthly reporting. He believes that that should show how the trend is developing and that we will not be caught out when at the end of the year the reports arrive, months out of date, and we find that there has been over fishing. That is all very well if the facts are reported properly month by month. The evidence is that, in addition to the reported catch over and above quotas, illegal catches over and above the quotas are not properly reported. How can we make sure that reporting is accurate? The only way in which we can make sure of that is by having inspectors from this country based in the major fishing ports of the EEC countries.
That may not be a practical proposition, but I am convinced that unless we try to examine the situation in this light we shall get nowhere. There must be a proper system of inspection. It is not fair that quotas should be over fished and that the concept of conservation should be destroyed.
The industry is in crisis—not one crisis, but two. There is a crisis of finance and there is, more importantly, a crisis of confidence. There is a feeling in the industry that we are isolated and that nobody really cares enough about the problems to take urgent action. I can understand why a number of people in the fishing industry complain of money being found for British Steel and British Leyland.
I defend the right of the Government to put money into those industries, but I also understand the feelings of the fishermen who are upset about nothing being done about their industry. The crisis will deepen as long as we are unable to resolve the common fisheries policy. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, who has come round to accepting a view that I expressed three years ago. The time for discussing the future of the fleet is not after the conclusion of the CFP, but now. The review is long overdue and should be commenced immediately. The Government should stick to their resolve and give an immediate short-term answer.
The meeting at Peterhead was orderly. A warning was given to the Tories to deliver in four weeks. Let us have action before then, and we shall support it.
It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7. (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL

[Lords] (By Order)

As amended, considered.

New Clause 2

INTERPRETATION OF PART II (No. 2)

In this Part 'industrial building' has the meaning given by section 66 of the Act of 1971 and 'industrial undertaking' has a corresponding meaning.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7 pm

Mr. Alastair Goodlad: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this new clause it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 1, in page 5, line 37, leave out clause 5.
No. 2, in clause 6, page 6, leave out lines 12 to 16.
No. 3, in page 6, line 17, leave out '(c)'.
No. 4, in page 6, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
'(2) In this section "small firm" means an industrial undertaking which has no more than 100 whole-time employees.'

Mr. Goodlad: I should like to speak briefly to the amendments in my name. I am persuaded by the argument that Private Bills are not the right way for individual local authorities to seek new powers to assist industry. The resultant proliferation of powers of subsidy would not be in anybody's interests.
If the powers exercised by various local authorities, combined with their financial means, are totally at variance, the regional and other priorities which must be co-ordinated by the Government will be impossible to achieve. If the authorities with the greatest powers, or the longest purses, are for ever upping the ante in a never-ending auction, the changes in regional assistance announced by my right hon. Friend in July of last year, which are designed to concentrate assistance in

the areas of most acute need, would be frustrated—as would the outcome of the Government's present review of the assistance given to industry by the public sector and the future role of the local authorities therein. Pending decisions by the Government and this House on these matters, it would be inappropriate if other powers to assist industry were taken in Private Acts. The public interest, as well as the interests of Merseyside, would be damaged.
I hoped that the considerations which gave rise to these amendments would be applied evenhandedly by the House in deciding on powers to assist industry in other Private Bills currently before Parliament. I understand that the relevant Private Bill Committees have already deleted similar provisions from Bills promoted by the Greater London Council, the Isle of Wight county council and the county of Cheshire. I understand that the Committee examining the Greater Manchester Bill is to examine a report proposing similar changes and that at the appropriate time the Committees examining the West Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, Humberside, Derbyshire and County of Kent Bills will do the same.
This series of amendments would delete from part II of the Bill those provisions relating to assistance to industry which are not substantially precedented in existing Acts applying to the area.
New clause 2 seeks to narrow the definition of "industrial" for purposes of part II of the Bill. The definition in the new clause—that contained in section 66 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971—is similar to and a little wider than that used in the existing Private Acts. This means that the types of firms and premises in respect of which assistance could be given under part II of the Bill would be broadly similar to the types that can be assisted under previous private legislation applying to the area. The new clause rectifies a defect in the amendment which tabled earlier, which I withdrew and which failed to define explicitly an "industrial undertaking" in clause 6.

Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 would delete clauses 5 and 6(1)(a) and (b). Clauses 4 and 6(1)(c), 7 and 8 are unaffected as these are precedented in earlier Private Acts in parts of Merseyside.

Amendment No. 4—the insertion of the definition of "small firm" in clause 6—is a drafting amendment in consequence of the intended deletion of clause 5. It brings forward the definition from the deleted clause.

I ask the House to accept the clause and the amendments.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I wish to speak against the amendments. I do not believe that the case that the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Goodlad) made justifies the legislation being amended in the way that it is proposed. It was argued by the hon. Gentleman that the powers included in the Bill would give the local authorities in the Merseyside area the power to make grants on interest payable by small firms or money borrowed by them for land for industrial purposes.
It was argued that that power was unnecessary because Government national legislation enables the necessary facility to take place without this local power. It was also suggested that loans should not be allowed to be given by the councils on Merseyside on interest payable by small businesses on money borrowed to provide machinery and equipment for any purpose. It is also suggested in the amendments that grants for the costs of preparing the site of an industrial building, or any land owned or leased by a small firm, should not be allowed.
It is suggested that all these loan restrictions should be placed on local authorities in the Merseyside area because national legislation should take care of these matters. There should not be duplication of what one local authority can provide to attract industry compared with another local authority.
If we were comparing differences between the counties of Cheshire, Essex or Sussex, I should agree with the mover of the amendments. However, if we are comparing local authorities with those in areas such as Merseyside, Tyneside and Clydeside, I must point out that the inner city urban areas have terrific problems, some of which I hope to describe in my speech. If we are talking about those areas, surely even this Government, in their policies for regional investment, have said that there are special cases to be made out for areas such as Merseyside in respect of the incentives that

should exist to attract small businesses into these areas. The existing powers in the legislation, which the amendments would destroy, would not have a detrimental effect upon the whole of Merseyside. Merseyside's problems are especially acute. That is why these measures should be kept in the legislation. These provisions, which would allow all the councils in Merseyside to use grants and loans to help small industries and businesses, should be retained in the light of the employment situation on Merseyside. If we consider the Merseyside economy and its history, we understand why these powers and provisions should be retained.
In Liverpool in the early 1970s we saw a continuation of the trend of the previous decade of declining job opportunities in the city. Over the 10 years to 1971, about 75,000 jobs were lost from the city, or 19 per cent. of the local work force. This dramatic decline was halted only temporarily by the national economic boom of 1972–73. Since then the situation has continued to get worse. Between 1971 and 1975, the number of people in employment in Great Britain rose by 3 per cent. while in Liverpool it fell by 5 per cent. The number of people in manufacturing industry in Great Britain fell by 7 per cent. In Liverpool it fell by 10 per cent. The number of people in service industry in Great Britain rose by 10 per cent.; in Liverpool it fell by 10 per cent. The number of people in the construction industry in Great Britain rose by 4 per cent.; in Liverpool, it fell by 12 per cent.
Within the past few months, the Government's declared policy of encouraging the entrepreneur to invest has had no effect on Merseyside. What has happened in Merseyside during that period demonstrates why special powers should be kept for Merseyside even though they are not being provided in other local government Bills.
At Ford's, Halewood, 200 jobs are to be lost, with a reduction of cars in kit form for export. The closure of Meccano, Liverpool was announced on 30 November, with the loss of 930 jobs. In Gandy Frictions Limited, Wallasey, one-third of the employees will lose their jobs in January. The brake shoe manufacturers are suffering from the world recession and the industrial unions have accepted the position. In BOC Chemicals, Brom-


borough, 140 workers in all occupations are to be made redundant. In Girling Limited, Bromborough, 450 of the 1,400 work force are to be made redundant. In the Wirral borough council, 87 teaching posts have been earmarked for axing in economy cuts. At BSC Shotton, 900 workers have accepted redundancy terms and will leave in January.
In the Bootle district, the area that I represent, in GEC Distribution Equipment, Gilmoss, 200 redundancies are planned for April 1980. J. W. Pickering & Sons, Bootle, only 18 months after moving to new premises with hopes of expansion, has had to close the ship repairing company because of lack of business, and 40 jobs will be lost. At Ulapalm, in Knowsley, the theft of garments and cash from the factory threatens the future of the factory, which opened in 1978. At present 60 staff are employed and it was planned to employ 130, but those jobs are likely to go. In Rockware Glass, St. Helens, 450 jobs are to be lost next March. In Vanda Limited, Skelmersdale, the American company, Dart International, has decided to sell its cosmetics factory and 140 jobs are threatened unless a buyer can be found. At the CWS, Crewe, 164 workers may be made redundant as it is planned to close the menswear factory. In the British Steel Corporation, Warrington, 700 workers may be made redundant with the proposed closure of the rod and section mills at Bewsey Road. At Twinlock, Crewe, 89 workers have received notice of redundancy. At Heron Motors, Penketh, 42 jobs will be lost because of closure in early 1980. So it goes on.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Many of us who do not live in Merseyside are aware of the decline that has taken place over a long time. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there is no place for a policy that tries to encourage entrepreneurs to get new businesses started? What recipe is he putting forward?

Mr. Roberts: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's intervention means that he will vote against the clause. I am suggesting exactly what he suggests in his intervention. The legislation will provide grants and loans to encourage the entrepreneurs that he is talking about.

Mr. Robert Parry: In addition to the horrific list of jobs lost given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), since the beginning of this year a further 200 jobshave been lost in the CBS Shipbuilding and Engineering Company in my constituency, and also over 400 jobs at Tillotsons. In addition, 680 jobs will disappear on the docks. There is also a question mark over 1,700 jobs at Tate and Lyle.

Mr. Roberts: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, adding to the list of workers who have been thrown on the scrapheap in Merseyside.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Liverpool there are about 1,600 acres of derelict, dormant and vacant land, of which about 800 or 900 acres are in the hands of nationalised industries and local authorities? Does he agree that if that land could be auctioned and used, new jobs could be created? He has been talking about the decline of Merseyside and Liverpool, but surely he will agree that if nationalised industries were no longer allowed to hoard land, many new jobs could be created.

Mr. Roberts: I wish that I shared the hon. Gentleman's confidence. It is no good having land available for industry if there is no industry to go on to the land. If we are to encourage new small businesses to come to Merseyside, there is plenty of land in the private sector and in the public sector on which they can be sited, and we shall need the powers in the Bill that would be taken out by the clause. The hon. Gentleman, I assume, will be supporting me by voting against the clause.
Let me continue by highlighting the facts that I have been describing in listing the redundancies that have occurred in the past six weeks. In the Merseyside employment service area, 2,876 redundancies were notified in October, compared with 2,680 in 1978 and 1,095 in 1977. The major industries affected are shipbuilding, with 1,000; vehicle manufacture, with 400; timber and furniture, with 318; and glass, with 300. All, with the exception of vehicle manufacture, were within the Merseyside special develment area, which had 2,202 redundancies


notified in October compared with 1,575 in 1978 and 816 in 1977. As can be seen, the situation has worsened.
One of the worst aspects of this unemployment, with about 12 per cent. of active males being unemployed in Merseyside, is that many of them are young people. Another disturbing aspect is the long-term unemployment figure, which indicates that in October last year 41.5 per cent. of unemployed males and 24 per cent. of unemployed females had been out of work for more than 52 weeks, compared with 30 per cent. of unemployed males and 17.2 per cent. of unemployed females in Great Britainas a whole. That shows that the situation is much worse in Merseyside and that special powers are necessary in that area, if not elsewhere. In October 1979 the Merseyside metropolitan county had the highest rate of unemployment—11.5 per cent.—of any county in Great Britain.
There are many problems, particularly in relation to the docks, and I return to my constituency to illustrate a problem that is not untypical of many areas in Merseyside. In Bootle there are about 30 people chasing every job vacancy in the area. It cannot be suggested that people are voluntarily unemployed or are unemployed alongside job vacancies that they could take up. The latest Department of Employment statistics show that there are 5,088 people registered as unemployed in Bootle, and during the past month another 160 people joined the town's dole queue.
The Merseyside county council structure plan states:
Because of the weaknesses in Merseyside's economy, unemployment continues to rise, nearly doubling in the past five years. In June last year more than 81,000 people were out of work, one in every eight of the workforce.
The county has the largest concentration of youth unemployment in Britain: last year the county had nearly as many youngsters out of work as Greater London, which has four and a half times its population.
And those out of work on Merseyside have, on average, been out of work longer that the unemployed of anywhere else in the country.
Jobs will continue to fall, says the report, from 630,000 now to only about 580.000 by 1986. Policies must encourage private firms to invest and take on more.
That is exactly what the clause will prevent. The structure plan continues
Land has to be provided for industry's needs".

One of the amendments removes the power of local councils to grant loans to help with the interest payable by small businesses on money borrowed to buy land. The plan refers to
modern factories provided in the city areas".
Of course they should be, and the local authorities should have the power to assist small businesses to do that. It continues:
factories should be encouraged in the dockland areas, and office development in the urban centres.
In Merseyside, especially in Bootle, the prospects are grim unless action is taken to encourage investment and small businesses. The amendments would have the opposite effect. We must do a great deal more to help small businesses.
I regret that Merseyside is being abandoned to a free market economy. Since the Labour Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) in 1964, there has been a policy to provide incentives for private business to invest in Merseyside. A massive amount o fassistance has been given to small firms. The incentives that have helped small businesses would be destroyed if the amendments were passed.
One of the major problems in Merseyside is that 86 per cent. of all new jobs generated are in firms that do not have their headquarters in the area. Those firms do not exist as an entity in Merseyside but merely establish branches in the area. There is a greater likelihood of branches being closed than of company headquarters being closed. That is why the clauses in the legislation are so important.
A small business that sets up in Merseyside is a headquarters business and not a branch of a massive company that stretches throughout Britain, and possibly overseas. An entrepreneur or business man operating on a large scale would invest and build factories near the centre of communications. He would not invest in Merseyside unless he was encouraged to do so by incentives. It would be more economic for him to place their factories nearer to the markets in which he was trying to sell. That is why many large companies have closed


their branches in Merseyside. It is important that there is legislation that enables local authorities to encourage small businesses, which often produce for a local market. If the legislation passes unamended, it will achieve that aim.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Merseyside does not enjoy good communications? In trying to promote Merseyside, I would certainly say that it enjoys exceptionally good rail, road, air and sea communications. It is an essential part of our promotion of Merseyside.

Mr. Roberts: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who wishes to promote Merseyside. His intervention demonstrates that he intends to oppose the clause.
I was not suggesting that we should sell Merseyside short by telling the outside world that it does not have good communications. However, it is not as near as London is to the markets of the EEC. It does not have the advantages enjoyed by many parts of the South of England in terms of access to the Common Market.
There is no doubt in the minds of those who live inor represent Merseyside that the reasons for its continued decline is its position in Britain, the fact that the port is facing the wrong way, and the fact that many businesses have chosen to invest nearer the centre of the market in which they are trying to sell.
If we have the right Government economic policies and if we allow the provisions in the Bill under which local authorities could encourage small businesses, we could make it viable for industry to invest in the Merseyside area.
In the long term, we must not accept the view that unemployment is here to stay. Structural unemployment is not an acceptable excuse. Before 1970 full employment in Britain was taken for granted. It is only since 1970 that, for the first time since the war, unemployment has increased to a totally unacceptable level. It has affected Merseyside and similar areas more than other parts of the country.
A policy of full employment remains, and will always remain, the policy of the Labour Party. I am sure that it will be the policy of the next Labour Govern-

ment. I wish that the Conservative Government would adopt that policy. It does not augur well for the future that a Government-inspired series of amendments would take away from Merseyside powers that would help to solve the unemployment problem.
The obscenity of unemployment must not be underestimated. It is soul-destroying for the school leavers who face the prospect of ongoing unemployment, becoming institutionalised in our employment exchanges and having their spirits destroyed. It will prevent them from living successfully in the real world.
Massive expansion of investment in Merseyside is essential. We should be using the National Enterprise Board instead of destroying it. We should be creating new, publicly owned industries.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are not having a general debate on Merseyside; we are discussing the interpretation of the clause. Will the hon. Gentleman please confine his remarks to part II of the Bill?

Mr. Roberts: I shall try to remain as relevant as possible. I am sure that the House will agree that the clauses have to be seen in the context of the present posi-in Merseyside and that the justification for their existence can be argued only in relation to the problems faced by Merseyside. Those problems can be considered only in the context of the economic problems faced by the nation.
I argue strongly that the amendments should be rejected. If hon. Members who represent Merseyside wish to see entrepreneurs invest in the area, and if they wish to see help for small businesses, they will vote against the amendments. In so doing, they will provide Merseyside county council and the district authorities with the necessary powers. I am sure that they will not accept that a general piece of legislation applying to the whole of the country is relevant and sufficient for Merseyside.
The Inner Urban Area Act 1978 gives powers to local authorities to grant loans similar to those provided in the Bill. The legislation applies only to those district council areas where the Minister, through statutory instrument, designates that the powers can be used. There are only two designated districts in Merseyside—Liver-


pool and Sefton. Hon. Members representing constituencies that do not fall in those two districts would be even more disadvantaged than the hon. Members representing Liverpool and Sefton. I am sure that they will be voting in the Lobby in order to ensure that this bad series of amendments is defeated. The amendments will virtually destroy what powers the local authorities have to take their own initiatives to help small businesses, and I am sure that every hon. Member representing a Merseyside constituency will vote against them.

Mr. Eric Ogden: My purpose is to join my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) in supporting the Conservative-controlled county council in its proposals and to resist the amendments that have been suggested by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Goodlad). If I do so in less time than my hon. Friend, it is simply because he referred to many of the problems.
While the list of difficulties mentioned by my hon. Friend is accurate, that is by no means the whole picture of Merseyside. I shall be meeting at least one industrialist tomorrow. He is thinking of coming to Merseyside. Had he read only the earlier part of my hon. Friend's comments—about deprivation, difficulties, dangers and all the disadvantages—he might get the impression that that was Merseyside. He may ask himself "Do I want to leave a prosperous area and come to this?" just as in earlier times people in Wigan and Manchester talked about living in a grey area and expected people from outside to come to such an area.
In spite of all the problems, Merseyside is busy, active, lively, industrious and working extremely hard. It is an attractive proposition for many people, as 99 per cent. of the employers' organisations or the companies themselves will verify. My hon. Friend's picture was completely accurate, but it was only part of the picture.
So far as I can gather, Northwich is not officially, or even unofficially, inside Merseyside. It might well wish to be. We may consider it at some time, but it is definitely in Cheshire. Even though

Cheshire now comes to the north side of the Mersey, it is not my idea of what the true boundaries are. A long time ago in this place there was a view that Cheshire Members could decide what they wanted and that other Members could get onwith it; if Merseyside Members wanted what was contained in this type of Bill, they could sort it out for themselves. It was a case of non-intervention. Of course, every Member of Parliament has the right and the duty to scrutinise, but that was a good, practical, day-to-day working rule.
The hon. Member for Northwich has said, as he is entitled to, that the existing provisions will not be good for Merseyside. I do not know how much interest he has taken in the affairs of Merseyside, but he has taken a direct one in this instance. He will be aware that the Bill has probably had more scrutiny, consideration, discussion and argument than any other. This is the Eliza Doolittle of legislation—we have grown accustomed to its face.
The hon. Gentleman must know that four hon. Members—my hon. Friends the Members for Consett (Mr. Watkins) and for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Callaghan) and the hon. Members for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) and for Meriden (Mr. Mills) went through the Bill line by line and clause by clause. Each of them looked at clause 5, to which the hon. Member for Northwich referred, and gave it their approval after the most detailed consideration. If Government legislation were to receive the kind of detailed consideration that this Bill has had, we would save ourselves a great deal of trouble. Has the hon. Member for Northwich considered in any broad outline the evidence submitted to the Committee by Mr. Raymond Francis O'Brien or the treasurer, Mr. Hill? Has he read that? Does he agree with the broad outline? The clause in question was certainly recommended by them.
The arguments adduced by the hon. Gentleman, and those that will probably be adduced by the Under-Secretary of State, are the arguments that were adduced by members of the previous Labour Government when the matter was discussed on Second Reading. I suggested then, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was Secretary of State for the


Environment, that local ratepayers should decide, through their local representatives, how some of their money should be spent. That caused gasps of astonishment from the Labour Government, as it did from Conservative Members. It seems that someone in the Department has managed to hold on to the reins of power irrespective of which Government are in office.
Things are a little different with the hon. Member for Northwich and the Government. They are committed to non-intervention and to a policy of do-it-yourself. They believe that people should sort out their own problems and get on with it. They believe in less Government control, intervention and expenditure. That is predictable. But we are not asking for that. We are not asking for another handout from the Government. We are asking that the county council be allowed to use a little of its money to help local business and endeavour and to get the money back in rates and all the rest.
The money that any county council can provide is minute compared with the money that comes through regional assistance. I hope that the Minister will not argue that the county council proposes to destroy the balance, reason and organisation as well as the whole of the Government's regional aid plan. I hope that he will not suggest that by pouring in millions of pounds the balance will be upset. Not even the Secretary of State has suggested that.
The Bill has been brought forward on a non-party basis. It was prepared by a Labour county council and it is now supported by a Conservative-controlled one. We want to use some of our resources—very small compared with the Government's resources—in a way that will not destroy the balance of Government aid and support between one region and another. We want to sort out our own problems and to get on with it. Let us have the chance.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): It may assist the House if I intervene at this stage—I am sure that that delights the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) if no one else—to clarify the Government's attitude towards the

clauses in part II of the Bill which relate to local authority powers to assist industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) made it clear in the debate on the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill last June that the Government were firmly opposed to any extension of the existing powers of local authorities by way of local Acts. For the reason that he gave on that occasion, the Government reported to Parliament against certain powers in part II of the Bill now before us, and we now support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Goodlad).
I can understand very well the desire of all local authorities, especially those in areas such as Merseyside, to do all they can to promote and encourage industrial development in their areas, and there can be no doubt that local authorities can play a vital part by helping to create the sort of environment that will encourage the development of industry. Many authorities, including those on Merseyside, are, I know, aware of the value of adopting planning policies and procedures which will bring rewards in this way, and there is much more that can be done.
We have heard in this debate of the special needs and problems of Merseyside, and I think it is important to put on record that reason for the Government's continued opposition to certain of the clauses in part II of the Bill. It is certainly not the purpose of the Government to deny Merseyside the means to deal with its special circumstances. On the contrary, it is the desire to prevent the undermining of those means already available or proposed which leads us to oppose these provisions.
I have in mind our proposals to bring into operation—

Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister said that the Government were opposing these provisions. Can he assure the House that there is no Whip on these amendments and that there will be a free vote, because this is a matter which should not divide the parties, and certainly not hon. Members who represent constituencies in the Merseyside area?

Mr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman must know that I could not possibly rise to


that. The Government have the responsibility of getting their business through. Certain proposals are outlined here which we find unacceptable. If the hon. Gentleman listens to the rest of my speech, he will perhaps understand why we feel that these matters are of importance.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I am rather concerned about what the Minister said about getting Government business through. This is not Government business. It is a Bill promoted by the Merseyside county council. Although I am relatively new to the House, I understand that traditionally the Government do not interfere in the kind of way that this Government are interfering with this kind of legislation. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that his hon. Friends who represent Merseyside constituents should vote against the needs of Merseyside because the Government are adopting what seems to be a doctrinal, rigid and uniform policy on local governent powers for the whole of the area, despite Merseyside's difficulty, I find it a disturbing statement.

Mr. Fox: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right. This is a Private Bill. I intervened to put to the House the feelings of the Government on this issue. There is no way in which Merseyside can be divorced totally from national policies. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen while I mention one or two points which will help to solve the very serious problems of Merseyside, which we all understand, whether or not we represent a constituency there.
I have in mind our proposals to bring into operation an urban development corporation which will concentrate its efforts in revitalising the dockland areas of Merseyside, and I welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver tree (Mr. Steen) for that. We propose to increase the concentration of regional industrial assistance which results from our review of the assisted areas last year and under which the major part of the country remains in the highest priority category as a special development area. We recommend the continuing availability of Inner Urban Areas Act powers and urban programme funds to the designated districts in Merseyside. Those measures constitute a substantial attack on the problems of the area and

give it a priority consonant with its difficulties.
The powers in the Bill which we are unable to support represent an extension to those powers which are precedented by the existing local Acts which predate local government reorganisation. We have stated clearly that we are opposed to any further proliferation of powers for local authorities to give financial assistance to industry by way of local Acts. The effect of conceding any additional powers in the Bill would undoubtedly create a precedent for future local Bills. It would inevitably make it more difficult to resist the demands of other areas for similar powers. Industrialists would be faced with a chaotic multiplicity of competing schemes of assistance from different local authorities.

Mr. Ogden: Tyne and Wear have those powers, and I hope that the Government are not proposing to take them away.

Mr. Fox: I am not suggesting that we take those powers from Tyne and Wear, but a precedent was set a long time ago. It is in operation, and we do not intend to change it.
The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that everything did not start with the election of a new Government in May of last year. Many Acts gave certain powers. Those powers end in 1981 or 1984. The hon. Gentleman is right. We are attempting to bring some sense into the system.
As I explained, that would be bound to lead to the wasteful use of limited resources. The end result would be to undermine and dilute the policies which the Government have been pursuing with the express objective of giving priority to the most needy areas. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and the hon. Member for West Derby have got it wrong. It is because we wish to protect Merseyside's special position that we oppose the policies that they suggest and the clauses that they would presumably support. To support them would lead to a proliferation of local Act powers, which would lessen the edge which Merseyside can at present offer the potential developer.
For those reasons, we support all the amendments—in particular new clause 2—which have been propounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich.


They will achieve what is required to restrict part II of the Bill to powers for local authorities, to give financial assistance to industry, which are precedented in the Merseyside area. Apart from those points, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. David Alton: I should like to deal with two of the points made by the Minister. He began by saying that the Government are taking two steps to assist small businesses on Merseyside. They are establishing an urban development corporation, and they are continuing their urban aid programme. If local government had behaved in the manner in which the Front Bench behaved in drawing up proposals for the urban development corporation, the Minister and the Secretary of State would have been castigating local government as being downright irresponsible. Urban development corporations have been set up, but they have been given no budgets for the forthcoming year. We do not know how much money they will have or who are to be their members. Only last week we were told the names of the chairmen and deputy chairmen. It does not give me any confidence to find that the deputy chairman of the new urban development corporation in Merseyside is also the chairman of the Merseyside county council—a point to which I shall return later.

Mr. Ogden: Sir Kenneth Thompson said:
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
There is something to be said for that.

Mr. Alton: Even though Sir Kenneth Thompson became a convert on the road to the urban development corporation, I am not convinced by those arguments. I am not convinced by the setting up of an organisation that is without a budget and that is in no way accountable to the Liverpool city council or the Merseyside county council, or to Members of Parliament representing the Merseyside area. It is amazing that someone who is a leading critic of and totally opposed to the principle of the urban development corporation should so suddenly be converted to that principle.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the urban

development corporation covers only a small part of Merseyside—in fact, areas in only two of its districts, Liverpool and Sefton? It covers a small part of my constituency. Even if the urban development corporation had a massive budget and represented a real commitment to investment, it would be a small contribution to the needs of the whole of Merseyside. The clauses that we are discussing affect the whole of Merseyside.

Mr. Alton: I certainly agree with that. There are many parts of Merseyside that gain no advantage from the development corporation. To take away the power to assist small businesses would be a disadvantage to those who wish to establish businesses in Merseyside. The establishment of an urban development corporation would be no use to the people living in the township of Kirkby, whose problems do not need to be repeated again tonight. I agree with the reason given by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) that far too often we talk about our problems but we do not talk about some of the good things.
The Minister spoke about urban programme funds. I should have a lot more confidence in the Government and in the Front Bench if they were to announce tonight that they will revoke their decision to enforce time-expired clauses on urban projects in the city of Liverpool. The practical effect of that will be that many projects that have been financed through the urban programme are now living with a sort of Damoclean sword over their heads. They face great uncertainty about their future. One such project dealing with handicapped children in the Holly Road area of my constituency has recently been told that its grant may not be renewed next year because of the time-expired principle. That will mean that it may not be able to continue to employ staff and to deal with the children who are being helped by the project. If we are serious in the resolve to try to assist Merseyside through the help of the urban programme, it would be a good idea to review the time-expired procedures.
If the clause and the amendments are supported, they will result in a deliberate discrimination against Merseyside, Liverpool has been developing a system of small business extension by the development of advance factories and by


assistance of small entrepreneurs who are already based in Merseyside. Many of those small businesses have been expanding and creating new jobs. That has been done with the assistance of grants. If the additional assistance which is made available under the Bill were to come into effect, many more jobs would be created and small businesses, which are the life-blood of the nation's economy, would be assisted.
Liverpool's main problem is that it is burdened with the most profligate spending authority in the United Kingdom. I should like to quote from Tuesday night's issue of the Liverpool Echo: 
Ratepayers all over Merseyside face staggering rate rises; although the district councils have not yet announced their demands, in Liverpool the new rate could be as much as 60 per cent. up on last year. Part of this increase will be due to the extra demand of the Merseyside County Council, whose officials are recommending an increase of 29 per cent. in the rates they levy through the district councils.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to what is in the new clause and in the amendments which are being discussed with it.

Mr. Alton: I intend to relate the quotation to the clause, on the basis that it deals with small businesses, which will be very badly hit by the increase in rates. If the existing clauses are not supported this evening, it will be one more body blow that will affect small businesses. But I will bear your comments in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in trying to keep to the point.
The Liverpool Echo went on to say:
This is not, of course, a direct 29 per cent. on the ratepayers' bill, but only on that proportion of the bill which goes to the county, but it is none the less a big jump. The ratepayer is also going to face huge rises in the water rate. Increases for domestic users will average 23.5 per cent. throughout the North-West.
The article concludes:
Can the County council really say there is no way they can avoid asking for £36 million more?
I believe that there is. The first thing it should do is to abandon and scrap the Liverpool inner ring road scheme, which is also dealt with in the Bill in the

clauses covering the use of powers granted under the Liverpool Corporation Act 1966.
In the past, many small businesses have been blighted and many jobs have been lost as a result of the Liverpool motorway scheme, which later became the Liverpool inner ring road scheme. Over the last 15 to 20 years, about 100,000 people have left Liverpool. Many jobs have been lost and many small businesses, due to the effects of clearance and blight, have been closed down. That is why, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen) said earlier, there is so much derelict land in the heart of the inner city. It is not because of Hitler's blitzkrieg but more because of the blitzkrieg imposed by the Merseyside county council and its predecessor, the Liverpool city council, in demolishing people's homes to make way for a road that will be of no use to anyone, particularly the small businesses on Merseyside.
The Merseyside county council has just completed a structure plan which cost £3 million, and it tells us very little that was not already known. Last year it budgeted for a £17 million contingency fund, and it was over-budgeted by £6 million. Nevertheless, it still has to go on putting up the rates, and it is as a result of that that Liverpool city council will have to decide whether to cut back on school meals, school milk and so on. [Interruption.] I am afraid that there will not be very much school milk or many school meals as a result of the measures announced by the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
I am trying to make the point that the Liverpool city council is faced with a dilemma—should it raise rates or should it cut services? If it cuts such services as school meals and home helps, jobs will be lost in that area. If it puts up the rates, small businesses will inevitably have to close. For that reason, too, it is important that this burden should not be placed upon the ratepayers of Merseyside.
Many people do not seem to accept the position that Liverpool is facing. They do not seem to see its seriousness. The Minister said earlier that Liverpoool in some respects is no different from the rest of the country, but there is more unemployment on Merseyside than there is in the entire country of Wales or in


Northern Ireland. If a general labourer is out of work on Merseyside, the odds against his getting a job are 222 to 1.
Merseyside has a different kind of problem from that in other parts of the country. It is not that we are putting our hands on our hearts and bleating and saying that we cannot solve our problems ourselves. Merseyside has the determination and the desire to solve its problems, but it needs support and assistance from other local authorities and the Government. That is why councillors on Merseyside see one way of assisting small businesses in their development by enacting clause 6, on page 6 of the Bill. Not to pass it would mean that many more small businesses would go the way of those that have already disappeared.
We do not hear a great song and dance about the disappearance of small businesses. We do not hear people complaining about this in the way that they complain about closures by Plessey, English Electric, Western Ship Repairers or Meccano, or when any of the well-known firms wish to cut 1,000 or 2,000 jobs. We are faced with a constant list of closures and redundancies, yet Merseyside is prepared to fight back for itself. That is why it desperately needs the sort of assistance that the Bill is trying to give it.
We are approaching a position in which not just on Mersey side but throughout the rest of the country we could be back to the hungry 1930s. The county council, behaving in an almost totalitarian way in its handling of some of Merseyside's problems, is to blame. Yet this part of the Bill is an example of something that it has done to try to ease those problems. We cannot be over-critical. We have to accept that the Bill is something of a curate's egg. It is good in parts. I hope that in the Division this evening the House will support this part of the Bill.
Governments in the past have persuaded themselves that big companies are far more efficient and effective than small ones, and have directed subsidies and tax relief, therefore, towards the bigger companies. In effect, Governments have discriminated against the small businesses already in existence, while at the same time making it extremely difficult for people to start up new businesses. We

lag far behind our successful industrial competitors in terms of the proportion of manufacturing that is done in small firms. It is about time that Governments noticed that one reason why our economy is so much weaker than that of our competitors is precisely that ours is based so largely on centralised, bureaucratic and self-satisfied corporations which receive special favours from the national public purse. We are asking this evening for help from local funds, and that is a very different matter.
I also believe that our tax codes must be dramatically recast to ensure personal initiative, so that more people will want to set up and continue with small businesses. There should be at least as much incentive to invest in small businesses as there is to invest in pension funds. A Government-backed loan scheme, as recommended by the Wilson committee, should be establihed immediately, along with a small firms investment company. There should be a permanent post in the Cabinet for a Minister to range over all Government offices connected with small businesses.
One of the concessions obtained for small businesses during the period of the Lib-Lab pact was—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wildly from the new clause. I must bring him back to order.

Mr. Alton: I am sure that you are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but small businesses have suffered as a result of the removal of a Minister from the Cabinet. During the period of the Lib-Lab pact, when there was a Minister appointed, it was a help to small businesses. In the same way, I hope that the enactment of the clauses of the Bill will be a help to small businesses on Merseyside.
The self-employed are the forgotten power-house of Britain. If they flourish, so will Britain flourish in the future. I hope, therefore, that these important clauses will be supported and that the amendments propounded by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Goodlad) will be negatived.

Mr. David Hunt: This has been a fascinating debate, ranging very widely indeed. In considering new clause 2, several of the speakers strayed from


the point, but far be it from me to criticise them, because I detect tonight something very important indeed—an all-party resolve on the part of all Merseyside Members to revitalise Merseyside.

8 pm

I should not like people outside the Chamber to feel that Merseyside wants to hide anything. We are an exciting and important area, deserving of the greatest attention. I detected that in all the speeches that I have heard tonight. In my constituency there are already signs of the new technology, with the siting of the new microchip factory, and there are many other important developments in progress.

I came to the Chamber to listen to all the arguments with an open mind. The argument that impressed me most is that which was adduced by my hon. Friend the Minister, and it is very simple. [Interruption.] It is logical, if Opposition Members will listen.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Mr. Allan Roberts rose—

Mr. Hunt: If we allowed local authorities, as standard practice—for which the new clause would set a precedent—to adopt powers of this nature, Merseyside's special position would be seriously eroded. I regard Merseyside as having a special position far above that of any other part of the country. I am glad that that has been recognised by Ministers in this Government. One thing about which I felt disturbed under the previous Government was that Merseyside did not receive the high priority that it should have done. Unemployment doubled and trebled in my constituency at a time when we should have given Merseyside more concentrated power. Now, that has all changed because—

Mr. Allan Roberts: Mr. Allan Roberts rose—

Mr. Hunt: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) would allow me to finish my point. I did not interrupt him. For those who believe in Merseyside and want to support it, this is a time to listen. The important fact about Merseyside, which was not recognised by the previous Government, lies in the philosophy of regional policy. We

were then giving regional aid to about half the country. The present Government have decided to give that aid in greater concentration to areas such as Merseyside.
Before I decided to acquiesce to the new clause and the amendments, I made some investigations. I asked for examples of new businesses, existing jobs, old businesses and small firms which would not be able to set up on Merseyside if the new clause were passed. I am happy to tell the House that not one job will be lost on Merseyside as a result of the clause and not one inquiry that has been made will be turned away. I asked for evidence, and I have it. I am therefore able to reassure the House that the reason why the promoters of the Bill have instructed me to acquiesce in the new clause and the amendments is that they have been reassured that there will be no loss of jobs as a result of the change. It will mean a perpetration of deliberate discrimination in favour of Merseyside.

Mr. Ogden: Not before time. About six stages back I wanted to intervene. The hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) said that if the proposals in the Bill are accepted it will set a precedent. It will not. The Minister will discover, if he checks with his Department, that the 1976 Tyne and Wear legislation will not expire with all the other legislation. The precedent has already been set. If the county council thought it was right then, why is it now saying to the hon. Member that it does not want it? What the county council will provide is minute. No local county council could upset the balance of regional power in industry.

Mr. Hunt: A great deal has happened since the Bill was first introduced. There are a new Government and a new resolve to help Merseyside, which I recognise and applaud. That is what has happened as a result of the change at the general election. I have heard much from the Opposition about entrepreneurs, private capital and small businesses, and I appeal to them to join me in a stronger Merseyside lobby for the policies which I have confidence this Government will bring forward.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: —

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

END OF TOLLS FOR MERSEY TUNNELS

From the commencement of this Act no tolls shall be charged for passage through the Mersey Tunnels.—[Mr. Alton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The House divided:  Ayes 110, Noes 55.

Division No. 183]
AYES
[8.05 pm


Ancram, Michael
Gardiner George (Reigate)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Fdmunds)
Raison, Timothy


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Grist, Ian
Rathbone, Tim


Berry, Hon Anthony
Heddle, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Best, Keith
Hicks, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


Blackburn, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Blaker, Peter
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jessel, Toby
St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Boyson, Or Rhodes
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Bright, Graham
Lawson, Nigel
Shersby, Michael


Brittan, Leon
Le Merchant, Spencer
Sims, Roger


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Speller, Tony


Browne, John (Winchester)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Luce, Richard
Sproat, Iain


Buck, Antony
Macfarlane, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Butler, Hon Adam
MacGregor, John
Stanley, John


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
McQuarrie, Albert
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Major, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Channon, Paul
Marlow, Tony
Thomas, Rt Hon peter (Hendon S)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Donald


Colvin, Michael
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Cope,John
Mather, Carol
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Corrie, John
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Waddington, David


Costain, A. P.
Mellor, David
Wakeham, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Watson, John


Emery, Peter
Monro, Hector
Wheeler, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Whitney, Raymond


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Myles, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Needham, Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Fookes, Miss Janet
Nelson, Anthony



Forman, Nigel
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Newton, Tony
Mr. Alastair Goodland and


Fox, Marcus
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
 Mr. Malcolm Thornton.


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Parkinson, Cecil





NOES


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Ogden, Eric


Buchan, Norman
Hardy, Peter
O'Neill, Martin


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Palmer, Arthur


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Haynes, Frank
Parry, Robert


Cohen, Stanley
Heffer, Eric S.
Penhaligon, David


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cook, Robin F.
Home Robertson, John
Prescott, John


Cowans, Harry
Howells, Geraint
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnston, Russell (Iverness)
Silverman, Julius


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stallard, A. W.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kilfedder, James A.
Strang, Gavin


Dixon, Donald
Lamond, James
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Dubs, Alfred
Leighton, Ronald
Whitlock, William


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Litherland, Robert



Field, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. Allan Roberts and


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
 Mr. David Alton.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maynard, Miss Joan

Mr. Alton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 33, in page 75, line 39, leave out clauses 91 to 99.

No. 37, in clause 101, page 80, line 4, leave out from 'enactment' to 'after' in line 7.

No. 38, in page 80, line 10, leave out 'such moneys' and insert
'moneys borrowed for the purposes mentioned in subsection (2) below, or under subsection (3) below.'.

Mr. Alton: The purpose of the clause is to remove the tolls on the Mersey tunnels. They act as an artificial barrier instead of a bond on Merseyside.
In 1929 Parliament granted powers to allow the charging of tolls for the first Mersey tunnel. The leader of the Liverpool council, Sir Archibald Sinclair, said that there would come a time when the tunnel would be made toll-free. His successor many, many years later, Sir Harold MacDonald Stewart, gave a similar pledge when the Wallasey tunnel was completed. However, in 1980 we continue to pay a toll. There is a toll of 30p if one travels by car and a charge of 70p for vehicles of over three tons. That means that many are impeded in their desire to get from their place of residence to their place of work. Frequently transporters, hauliers and businessmen are unable to transport their commodities as successfully and economically as they would wish because of the large tolls that are imposed.
Many people cannot afford the cost of travelling through the Mersey tunnel. That is adding to the problems of the Merseyside economy. Some hon. Members gave an election undertaking that given the election of a Conservative Government they would fight for the tolls to be removed from the Mersey tunnels. I hope that Conservative Members who took that view in the past will find it within their power to support me in voting for the removal of tolls.
It would be of great benefit to Merseyside if people were able more readily to travel from one side of the water to the other. Undoubtedly the tolls act as a barrier. People are forced to pay tolls that are wildly beyond what they might reasonably be expected to pay. That is why I am convinced that the Mersey tunnels should become part of the national road netword and should act as a way of linking one community with another.
A person living in the Wirral, in Birkenhead or in Wallasey will have to pay 30p each day as he travels through the tunnel on his way to work. He will have to find another 30p on his return in the evening. In addition, he will have to pay high parking charges in Liverpool.
That is a disincentive to many firms to use Liverpool as a base for their business and to the spread of commerce in the city. Equally, business men who wish to transport their goods from Liverpool to the other side of the water in order to link up with the sophisticated motorway network which runs out of Birkenhead and Wallasey are faced with large costs. That, too, is a disincentive to commerce on Merseyside.
A much smaller number of households on Merseyside and in Liverpool own cars than probably in any other part of the country. We should look at the special problems of Merseyside and deal with them accordingly. The people who have cars should be given assistance to keep those cars in use, and their overheads should be reduced by removing the tolls from the tunnels. Like any other motorists, they pay road tax and the extortionate cost of petrol, and on top of that they pay the tolls. Equally, advice should be given to advise the Merseyside county council about the way in which it should integrate the tunnels and the road system into the basic network of transportation. For a long time, I have been struck by the fact that the council's transportation policies have left much to be desired.
Earlier, I referred to the Liverpool inner ring road. It was designed to feed into the Mersey tunnels but it has proved to be a non-event. It was the brainchild of politicians and planners in the 1960s. In 1966, the city council used the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Act 1966 powers in order to go ahead with the construction of the inner motorway. That was to be a road that might have been 16—in some places even 18—lanes wide. That is quite unimaginable in this day and age. It has been scaled down, but it will still cost the ratepayers about £40 million, at a time when people face vast increases in other costs.
Those powers are being re-enacted in the Bill. That means that people will not have the right of public inquiry. The best


thing that the House and the sponsors of the Bill can do is not to look at the problems of the tunnels in isolation but to look at the problems of the inner ring road as well. I plead with the sponsors to remove the clauses, which, once again, empower the Liverpool city council and the Merseyside county council to proceed with the construction of the ring road. It will mean that many small businesses will be driven out of business. Over 1,000 more jobs—on the county council's figures—could be lost. The ratepayers will be faced with large charges.
Equally, the way in which the Merseyside passenger transport executive works leaves much to be desired. I sometimes believe that MPTE stands for "make passenger transport extinct".

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. However, the point is that the Government have to finance this matter. Even if the new clause is passed—I shall vote for it—in the last analysis the Government have to pay. Therefore, we should appeal to the Government to give us the money. That must be made clear, otherwise a false impression is created. Passing the new clause alone will not solve the problem. I have been writing to several Governments for years and they have all told me that it cannot be done.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is correct when he says that freeing the tunnels will cost money. The danger is that if we do not free the tunnels, look at transportation policy again and reorder our priorities there will be more disadvantage to the economy of Merseyside. The hon. Member for Walton is saying that it will cost money to free the tolls. I am trying to point out that, for example, if the inner ring road scheme were abandoned, we would save a great deal of money which could be used to make the tunnels free. I do not ask merely for handouts from the Government. I plead with the sponsors to look at other clauses in the Bill which will mean that the county council will not have sufficient future money to free the tolls on the tunnels. One practical way in which that could be done is by looking at the clauses that allow the construction of the remainder of the Liverpool inner ring road.
When I spoke earlier, I tried to point out that the county council appears to have lost sight of the basic services, such as the operation of the tunnels and the clearing of grids and gulleys. It has cut back on those services and cannot even deal with matters like Dutch elm disease. It has decided that the districts should do that themselves, because it cannot provide money for those schemes. That is the reason it gives for not freeing thetolls—there is not enough money. I say that we could have the money if there were cutbacks on ludicrous schemes such as the inner ring road. I go further and say that we would save an even greater amount of money if we abolished the Merseyside county council. In the last few years, it has spent far too much time on grandiose pie-in-the-sky schemes that have turned into ratepayers' nightmares. Another example is the 139 high buildings that it wants to build on Liverpool dock front.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been a wide debate on the first new clause and I shall be much stricter on the second. Will the hon. Gentleman confine himself to the Mersey tunnels and not range on to subjects such as high-rise buildings?

Mr. Alton: I am trying to make the point that if the county council spent half the time that it spent on ludicrous fanciful schemes on trying to conserve ratepayers' money, the money would be available to free the tunnels. That would bring great benefit to the economy of Merseyside.
I return to the question of the number of households in Liverpool and on Merseyside with cars. In 1977, 56 per cent. of households in Great Britain had the use of at least one car. Estimates of numbers of households are not made for every year, but in 1976 there were 19·4 million households in Great Britain. That figure is drawn from the "Housing and Construction Statistics No. 25, Supplementary Table XVIII". Therefore, about 10.9 millon households had the use of at least one car. In Merseyside, the position is different. In the North-West, compared with the average number of 16 per cent. of people who own two or more cars, 9 per cent. own two or more cars.
About 41 per cent. of households on Merseyside have only one car, compared with 51 per cent. in the South-East.


Fifty per cent. of households on Merseyside have no car, compared with 33 per cent. from similar samples in the South-East. Those figures graphically show the differences that exist. That is why the Bill is being promoted. It takes account of the local problems of our conurbations, but the reintroduction of tolls continues to place a charge on those who can least afford it. It does not remove a barrier or create a bond. Many of those who can least afford the toll do not own a car.
I hope that the sponsors of the Bill will think again about the clauses relating to the inner ring road. I hope that they will support the principle of removing tolls. Given the opportunity and the savings that I have mentioned, the county council could find the money to finance such a scheme.

Mr. Thornton: I shall be brief. I shall not ride all my Mersey hobby-horses at the same time, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) has done. During the general election campaign, I do not recall making a pledge to the effect that Mersey tunnels should be toll-free.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Mr. Allan Roberts rose—

Mr. Thornton: In the past, as leader of Wirral borough council, I fought for a revision of the Government's estuarial policies. I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Edge Hill concerning the need for toll-free tunnels in Merseyside. However, this is not the way to achieve that. The outstanding sum of £63 million will be left for Merseyside ratepayers to pick up. The hon. Member deludes himself—which is not unknown—if he thinks that Merseyside county council will suddenly produce that money out of thin air. The new clause will mean that costs will fall on the backs of hard-pressed ratepayers in Merseyside.

Mr. Parry: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) that the sum of £50 million or more which is to be spent on the white elephant of a ring road could be put to better use?

Mr. Thornton: I do not accept that. The hon. Member for Edge Hill has dragged the question of the ring road into the debate. He will have an opportunity later to mention the ring road. We are discussing the Mersey tunnels and whether they should be toll-free. We should tackle the problem in a different way. We should persuade this Government—as we attempted to persuade the previous Government—to revise their estuarial policies. I hope that the hon. Member for Edge Hill and my other colleagues from Merseyside will join me in supporting that course of action.

Mr. Parry: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) and I took part in an Adjournment debate on a similar issue several years ago. At 3 o'clock or later in the morning we tried to persuade the former Minister of Transport to adopt this policy. We received a considerable amount of sympathy from the Minister, but unfortunately we received no assistance.
The argument for a toll-free Mersey tunnel grows day by day. More and more highways and motorways are being constructed on both sides of the Mersey. We should therefore consider including the Mersey tunnel in the national road system. I hope that the inner ring road will never be constructed. When the Mersey tunnel was first opened in 1934, it was agreed that tolls would be removed once the cost had been covered.
In the 1960s, when the Merseyside county council and the local city council decided to construct a second Mersey tunnel, it was agreed that the surplus cash should accrue and be kept to finance a second tunnel. That was opened in the early 1970s.
Some tunnels and bridges in this country are toll-free. The Mersey tunnel is important to Merseyside. We should have proper integration of our national road system. It is time that tolls were abolished, and I support new clause 3.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I am amazed at the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton). He is not riding all his hobby-horses tonight because he is being whipped into voting against them. He has already been whipped into voting against proposals to encourage small businesses.

Mr. Thornton: Not true.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is being whipped into voting against the very amendments that would make a reality of toll-free tunnels under the Mersey estuary. Unless hon. Gentlemen put their feet and votes where their concern and views are, that objective will never be achieved. I hope that the people of Merseyside will learn through the media—they will certainly be told through leaflets distributed by the Labour Party in Bootle—that Conservative Members who represent Merseyside are reneging on their duty. They are being cajoled and whipped into the Lobby to vote against measures that would benefit Merseyside.
I support the new clause. Why do we have tolls? Successive Governments have said that users should pay directly for at least some exceptional benefits, as they call them, in time and cost that major new and expensive estuarial crossings offer. I suggest that they are not exceptional benefits. The tunnels under the Mersey estuary provided the very communications network of which the hon. Member for Garston sang the praises only a few minutes ago. They are an integral part of the road network that serves Merseyside. They should not be treated differently from any other road or motorway. To do so would be detrimental and unjust to Merseyside.
The toll income from all the estuarial crossings in Britain is 1 per cent. of the annual expenditure on roads in England, Scotland and Wales. In the past, Ministers have said that costs should be met by those who benefit—the users. Others benefit from the Mersey tunnel—industry, commerce and everyone in the community. If the Government mean what they say about helping industry in Merseyside, hon. Gentlemen should vote for the clause and make the tunnels toll free.
About 99·99 per cent. of road mileage in England, Scotland and Wales is financed from the proceeds of national and local taxation. These crossings form the remaining 25 miles. That is all. They are financed by toll charges. Motorways are financed 100 per cent. by taxpayers' money. The user and the ratepayer pay nothing. The taxpayer pays nothing for toll tunnels. The user pays virtually 100

per cent. and the ratepayer pays hardly anything.
The idea of directly charging road users to pay for the provision and upkeep of roads came to an end in this country with the abandonment of the old turn-pike philosophy in the nineteenth century. But it has not been abandoned for the Mersey Tunnel.
We are asking nothing for Merseyside that has not already been granted to many estuarial crossings in other parts of the country. For example, there are the M5 Avonmouth bridge at Bristol, the M5 crossing of the River Exe at Exeter, the M62 crossing of the River Ouse at Goole, the M2 crossing of the River Medway, the M275 crossing in Portsmouth and the M85 crossing of the River Tay at Perth. The major difference between these crossings and the Mersey Tunnel is the cost of construction, which in all the major toll-free crossings was grant-aided wholly or mainly by the Government. In comparison, reflecting the "user-must-pay" policy, derisory grant aid was paid towards major toll crossings constructed by local authorities. There have been only four instances of Government grant being paid towards such facilities and in each case the amount involved was related to the orginal estimate of the cost of construction. The grant was never reviewed to allow for planning and construction delays or for the effects of inflation.
In the case of the tunnel connecting Liverpool and Birkenhead, which opened in 1934, 50 per cent. of the original estimated cost of £5 million was granted, and the actual cost was £8 million. Given such minimal grant aid, both to that tunnel and to the others that have subsequently been built, the crossing authority had to find other means of financing construction. It had to finance the construction cost pending receipts of revenue from the users.
In almost all the cases the bulk of the cost was financed by loans, many of which were provided by the Government at the prevailing market rate of interest. That has created a major problem for Merseyside because the outstanding debt on the loans is causing great difficulties. The operating cost of the Mersey Tunnel in 1977–78 was £2·6 million. The debt charges totalled £6·1 million, making a


grand total of £8·7 million. Toll income was only £5·3 million, so the deficit for that year was £3·4 million. The deficit brought forward from previous years was £19·5 million, making a total deficit of £22·9 million, arising mainly from interest paid on loans that were borrowed because tunnels were financed not by Government assistance, but by money that the local authorities had to borrow. It is the continually rising interest debt burden that is causing such problems.
In the early 1960s the Birkenhead tunnel was carrying traffic close to its capacity and a second crossing was obviously needed. At that time both the Government and the local authorities concerned believed that the tunnels would eventually pay for themselves. That is not so. To make up the deficit of £22·9 million, tolls for cars would have to be increased from the present 30p to £1·35, and Mersey tunnel tolls have already quadrupled in the last 13 years.
It is obvious that the least that should be done for an area like Merseyside, which has special development area status and which needs special assistance, is for the Government to provide funding to clear some of the outstanding debts. If the local authority really wants to spend a little of the ratepayers' money in order to get maximum benefit, it could contribute to getting rid of the tolls. Nineteenth century economics dictate that travelling with a car or a commercial vehicle means paying a toll. That is bad for Merseyside, and the remedy would cost the nation a negligible amount.
I believe that it could have an amazing effect in benefits to employment and industry on Merseyside. I shall be watching, like the whole of Merseyside, to see how Conservative Members vote in the Division Lobbies on this issue.

Mr. Ogden: The amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) and my hon. Friends is attractive at first sight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) said, he and I and other Merseyside Members had almost exactly the same debate in an Adjournment debate on 25 January 1977 at 4.55 am. I have a theory that somewhere in the Department of Transport, and in the Department of the Environ-

ment there is a long-lived person called the custodian of estuarial crossings. Governments comeand Governments go, but the policy remains the same.
Although I am not a betting man, I predict that the answer of the Under-Secretary, if he cares to intervene and help us with his advice, will be the same as that given by the Under-Secretary of State in 1977, namely, "special principles". I thought that the only principle was the percentage of salt water in the river or the estuary over which, or under which, one crossed. I thought that men went round to find out where a river was tolled and where it was not. I give the words of the Under-Secretary at that time:
Estuarial crossings are tolled—whether they are part of the national motorway network, as at Severn, or on local roads, as at Mersey—because they offer exceptional benefits for which it is thought right that the user should pay."—[Official Report, 25 January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 1459.]
I do not think that anyone on Merseyside would deny the enormous benefit that the linking of the two sides of the estuary has produced. I can go from North London to Merseyside on 200 miles of motorway which provide me with exceptional benefits, and do so free. The argument about tolls can be won by any reasonable person, but it means changing the policy of the Department.
We cannot have the enormous motorway links that exist in this country, and the attractive and useful links in Lancashire and Cheshire—the best motorway system in the whole of the United Kingdom—and have this narrow gap. I am not concerned so much about the amount of the toll. The charges are levied more on the constituents of the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) than on mine, but if someone can afford a motor car costing between £3,000 and £10,000—there are a fair number on Merseyside—thetoll will not make much difference. Those who can pay between £10,000 to £20,000 for a juggernaut lorry will also not worry too much about the cost of the toll. The amount of the charge is not particularly important to me. The fact that it is charged at all is important.
No Opposition Member wants a toll. Among the alternatives open to us is an attempt to persuade the Government—we were not able to persuade the Labour Government—to take over the debt


and provide aid and assistance. To act as has been suggested would result in the Government saying that a resolution had been passed and the Act could not come into force, or that when it came into force there would be no tolls. The Government would tell hon. Members to go back to Merseyside and sort the matter out. They would refuse to give extra money. There could be no tolls. We would have landed our ratepayers with a bill of £5 million to £8 million without any guarantee that anyone else would pay.

Mr. Alton: I tried to make the point that massive savings could be made by Merseyside county council itself. The council could cut down its contingency fund for next year, which is well above what is required. More important, it could exercise some thrift and perhaps abandon the inner ring road scheme that will cost ratepayers and taxpayers over £40 million. If that money were saved, it could be put into the exchequer and perhaps enable the county council to fund the tolls on the tunnel.

Mr. Ogden: That should bed one on a planned basis. It is a matter for conscious decision on Merseyside, though probably every other hon. Member for Merseyside would have a different set of priorities.
It is the job of county councillors, not of Members of Parliament, to run the county council. One of the problems with county councils is that so few electors take part in electing councillors, but they complain to Parliament when things go wrong. The electors should sort out their own problems. They put the Tory county council in, and if they do not like what the councillors are now doing they must sort it out themselves.
I cannot, in all conscience, on the basis of a one-off badly worded clause or amendment, land my ratepayers and others on Merseyside with an uncontrolled uncommitted bill for £5 million to £8 million.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens): As the Merseyside authority built two important tunnels under the Mersey, and as they serve many parts of the United Kingdom by enhancing mobility and communications between north and south, does my hon. Friend agree that it is the responsibility of the Government—if they really

want to help Merseyside with its economic and unemployment problems—to take on board the cost of repairing and maintaining both tunnels?

Mr. Ogden: I agree with my hon. Friend. We say that the tunnels, as estuarial crossings, should be part of the motorway network and be financed in the same way. I do not wish to land the St. Helens constituents, who hardly use the tunnels, with a £5 million to £8 million bill on a completely irrational and unconsidered basis.

Mr. Heffer: I make the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) concerning the removal of tolls. Many of us have been campaigning on that issue for a long time and for that reason I appreciate that the hon. Member for Liverpool. Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) has tabled the clause. It gives us an opportunity to discuss the issues.
The only way we can deal with this in concrete terms is to get from the Government—whether they be Labour or Tory—a statement that they will meet the financial loss that would result if tolls were abolished. If we abolish the tolls, we lose £8 million. When I say "lose", I also mean that the people of Merseyside would gain that money, and that is right because they need it. There ought not to be tolls. But without a clear guarantee from the Government of the day that they would give grant aid to us as an area if we abolished the county council the ratepayers of Merseyside would have to pay that £8 million. There is no argument about that. The money has to be raised somehow.
I argue that the clause, though I agree totally with its principle, would leave us in a difficult situation if it were passed in its present form. I shall vote for it because I feel that it would be a good expression of opinion. I fear that it will not get through anyway, because the Government have sufficient forces here to stop us.
If only for that reason, I think that we should have added at the end of the clause words such as "provided that the Government finance the needs of the tunnel" or something of that kind. That is the reality. We are not in the glorious situation that the state of Louisiana was


in in the days of Huey Long when tolls were charged on State bridges. Huey Long solved the problem simply. Private enterprise ran those bridges and he told the operators that if tolls were not removed he would erect free bridges next to those on which tolls were charged. He built a free bridge and solved the problem, because once the free bridge was built no one used the toll bridge.
We cannot build another tunnel because the cost would be astronomical. The only way to solve the problem is for the Government of the day to accept responsibility. It is right that they should. We have argued this case for years. Despite all the aid given by Labour Governments, there has not been sufficient aid given to help Merseyside to solve its problems. The case is unanswerable.
If the clause were accepted, difficult problems would be created for the local authority despite the argument that has been put forward that there could be some trimming back by the Merseyside county council. I have never been in favour of Merseyside county council. Long before I entered the House of Commons, I moved a motion in the Liverpool city council opposing the idea of the Merseyside county council. Unfortunately, the motion was lost.
I shall vote for the clause only because it is an expression of opinion. I do not think that it will be passed. If it were, I would have to accept responsibility for adding £8 million on to the ratepayers' bill. I do not want to accept such a responsibility. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to make a two-minute speech and say that the Government will accept total responsibility and meet the deficit that will arise. That will solve the problem of the Merseyside ratepayers. If he does that, he will please hon. Members on both sides of the House, there will be unanimity, and there will be no need for a vote. The ball is in his court.

Mr. David Hunt: What a marvellous speech the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made. I have heard of hedging bets, but for the hon. Gentleman to say that he will vote in favour of the clause in the expectation and hope that it will be lost was a slightly tortuous argument. I know exactly what he means.
I fully support the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) in an all-party approach to remove the toll on tunnels, and I would like that all-party approach to be strengthened. I am delighted with the efforts of the consortium of Mersey, Tyne, Dartford and Humber crossing authorities, which deserves our fullest support. A review is necessary of estuarial policy.
I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton), who lives in my constituency. He spoke extremely ably and asked why we should have this artificial, psychological and costly barrier just to enable us to get from our homes to our place of work. I support the notion that our crossing should be free.

9 pm

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman say how he would finance the objective that he favours? Many people express the pious hope that some day the Merseyside tunnels will be toll-free. That was said by those who built the first tunnel in 1929 and the second tunnel. How would the hon. Gentleman finance the project? The clause does not specify that. It deliberately leaves the question open. It can be a matter either for the local authority or the Government, or perhaps both. That is why the clause does not go into detail.

Mr. Hunt: The taxpayer should bear the cost of our tunnel tolls. I do not need to quote political speeches made in 1934 or since. I have lived in Liverpool for most of my life. As a child I went through those tunnels. I remember, quite vividly, a friendly old man with a moustache who used to beam benignly down at me sitting in the car. He said "Do not worry, young lad. When you are grown up, there will not be any tolls."

Mr. Heffer: That might have been my father-in-law.

Mr. Hunt: If I had known at that time that the old gentleman was the hon. Gentleman's father-in-law, my response might have been very different.
We must face realities. The new clause has given us an opportunity to debate an important issue. I realise the public expenditure constraints. Nevertheless, I believe that all of us from Merseyside, from all parties, should press for a new national policy on estuarial crossings.
I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) will not press his new clause. If he does, he may become known as the most expensive Merseyside Member of Parliament. It is not just a question of £8·7 million. We should still have to repay £63million, without the revenue with which to make repayments. If that happened, Merseyside rates would double. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to be responsible for that.

Question accordingly negatived.

The promoters of the Bill are aware of the strong feelings on this issue. However, they cannot possibly accept a denial of the revenue from the tolls under existing Government policy. I therefore urge hon. Members to vote against the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: —

The House divided:  Ayes, 48, Noes 110.

Division No. 184]
AYES
[9.03 pm


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Penhaligon, David


Buchan, Norman
Hardy, Peter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Haynes, Frank
Prescott, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of wight)


Cook, Robin F.
Home Robertson, John
Sever, John


Cryer, Bob
Howells, Geraint
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Stallard, A. W.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Strang, Gavin


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kilfedder, James A.
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Dewar, Donald
Lomond, James
Whitlock, William


Dixon, Donald
Leighton, Ronald
Woodall, Alec


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey



Field, Frank
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. David Alton and Mr. Allan Roberts.


Golding, John
O'Neill, Martin



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Parry, Robert





NOES


Ancram, Michael
Glyn, Dr Alan
Pattie, Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Goodlad, Alastair
Pollock, Alexander


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Grist, Ian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Hawkins, Paul
Raison, Timothy


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hicks, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Best, Keith
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Blackburn, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Blaker, Peter
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rossi, Hugh


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jessel, Toby
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Brinton, Tim
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shersby, Michael


Brittan, Leon
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sims, Roger


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Speller, Tony


Browne, John (Winchester)
Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Luce, Richard
Sproat, Iain


Butler, Hon Adam
Macfarlane, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
MacGregor, John
Stanley, John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
McQuarrie, Albert
Stevens, Martin


Channon, Paul
Major, John
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Marlow, Tony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Donald


Colvin, Michael
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Cope, John
Mather, Carol
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Corrie, John
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Waddington, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wakeham, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Elliott, Sir William
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wheeler, John


Emery, Peter
Monro, Hector
Whitney, Raymond


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wickenden, Keith


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Myles, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Needham, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Nelson, Anthony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Forman, Nigel
Neubert, Michael



Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Newton, Tony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Fox, Marcus
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Mr. Malcolm Thornton and Mr. Graham Bright.


Gardiner George (Reigate)
Parkinson, Cecil

Clause 1

CITATION AND COMMENCEMENT

Amendment made:  No. 5, in page 3, line 13, leave out '1st January, 1980' and insert—
'the expiration of three months after the passing of this Act'.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Clause 2

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made:  No. 6, in page 4, line 24, leave out 'National' and leave out 'Development'.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Clause 3

APPOINTED DAY

Amendment made:  No. 7, in page 4, line 33, leave out '1st January, 1980' and insert—
'the commencement of this Act'.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Clause 5

LOANS FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES

Amendment made:  No. 1, in page 5, line 37, leave out Clause 5.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Clause 6

GRANTS FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES

Amendments made:  No. 2, in page 6, leave out lines 12 to 16.

No. 3, in page 6, line 17, leave out '(c)'.

No. 4, in page 6, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
'(2) In this section "small firm"means an industrial undertaking which has no more than 100 whole-time employees.'—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Clause 7

FURTHER POWER TO ASSIST INDUSTRY

Amendment made:  No. 8, in page 6, line 25, after 'building', insert 'or'.—[Mr Goodlad.]

Clause 14

BUILDINGS UNDER HIGHWAYS

Amendment made:  No. 9, in page 12, line 23, at end insert—
'(3) Section 154 of the Highways Act 1959 (openings to cellars or vaults underfootways) shall have effect in the county as if, in substitution for the definition of "appropriate authority" in that section provided by section 153(6), there were inserted at the end of section 154—
"(6A) In this section 'appropriate authority' means, in relation to any street which is a highway, the highway authority for the street, and, in relation to any other street, the local authority in whose area the street is situated." '.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Clause 17

CONTROL OF DEMOLITIONS

Amendments made:  No. 10, in page 14, line 36, leave out 'a' and insert 'any'.

No. 11, in page 15, line 2, leave out 'district council' and insert 'local authority'.

No. 12, in page 15, line 11, leave out 'above' and insert 'of this subsection'.

No. 13, in page 15, line 16, leave out 'above' and insert 'of this subsection'.

No. 14, in page 16, line 8, leave out 'above' and insert 'of this section'.

No. 15, in page 16, line 10, leave out 'above' and insert 'of this section'.

No. 16, in page 16, leave out line 13. and insert—
'of this section.
(5B) A person contravening such a notice requiring the deferment of part of the demolition shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £500, but in any proceedings for an offence under this subsection it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.'.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Clause 31

NOTICE OF STREET PROCESSIONS

Mr. David Hunt: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 26, line 19, leave out 'the district council and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 32, in page 26,


line 19, after 'constable', insert
'by delivering it to a police constable at any police station in the district'.

Mr. Hunt: These amendments are the result of a good deal of discussion and deliberation. Hon. Members may recall that the so-called street procession clauses have given rise to a considerable amount of debate and discussion.
In a previous debate I stressed that in no circumstances were the clauses intended to apply to spontaneous processions. It has been a recognised concern of many hon. Members that in their present form the clauses could ban spontaneous marches. That was never the intention. Therefore, the two amendments will clarify the situation beyond any reasonable doubt.
For an organised procession there will still have to be three days' notice, and for the vast majority of other processions there will still have to be at least three day's notice. I hope that to assist the police force in Merseyside a period of notice in excess of three days will be given when there is a major procession. Regarding the spontaneous procession, I give the following undertaking and assurance that under clause 30 byelaws will have to be submitted to the Home Secretary by the county council for confirmation. It will appear as a paragraph (b) and it will state:
If in the case of any procession it is not reasonable and practicable to give the notice required by the said section 31"—
that is, clause 31 of the Bill—
by the time it is so required, the notice may be given as soon as reasonably practicable after that time, and before the procession starts to pass through any streets.
I give an assurance on behalf of the promoters that that will be the text of the byelaw to be submitted to the Home Secretary by Merseyside county council. I hope that that will do much to meet the fears and concerns of hon. Members. I hope that citizens in Merseyside will continue to give the police every possible support and every possible notice of any major procession, so that the police will be able to take adequate precautions to give the citizen the protection that he seeks from our police force.

Mr. Ogden: It is not my intention to disturb any agreement that has been

reached but simply to put on record a statement of the enormous amount of time that the county council and hon. Members have taken in concentrating their energies on this particular agreement.
The agreement recognises that some hon. Members and some people in Merseyside believe that the first test of democracy is to get up, organise a spontaneous demonstration, and march. There are others, like myself, who feel that the demonstration encourages the demonstrators and encourages a show of strength. I heard that the only time a demonstration changed anyone's mind was when the crowd cheered for Barabbas. But I shall not comment on that. An agreement has been reached. It is operable and it should cause no difficulties.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brittan): It may be convenient if I indicate the Government's attitude to the amendments which have now been agreed, and which I welcome.
Crucial to the agreement that has been reached is the question of the byelaw. The effect of the byelaw, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) spoke, would be, in effect, to apply in Merseyside arrangements in relation to giving notice of processions similar to those that the House recently agreed should apply in the West Midlands. Such a byelaw would require confirmation by the Home Secretary. I should like to make it clear that there will be no problem in securing that confirmation. I am glad that it has proved possible for the promoters of the Bill and the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) to reach agreement on that basis.
As I made clear in our discussion on the West Midlands Bill, the compromise formula then achieved, which is now again to be given in Merseyside, may not necessarily provide a perfect model were the Government to decide, as a result of their current review of general public order legislation, that a national requirement of advance notice is desirable. That would be a question that would have to be considered on a national basis when the review was completed and according to the conclusions reached in that review. Any decision taken by the House tonight in no sense pre-empts that review or implies any conclusion of it.
I also said, when we considered the West Midlands provisions, that where a case was made for a provision of this sort in the current local legislation that is going through the House, there was some advantage in a measure of uniformity of approach. That is a further reason why I congratulate those concerned on what is now proposed, as it falls in line with the similar compromise that has been reached elsewhere.
I think, therefore, that it makes sense, pending any consideration of the whole question on a national basis as a result of the review on which we are now embarked.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:  No. 32, in page 26, line 19, after 'constable', insert—
'by delivering it to a police constable at any police station in the district'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Clause 33

POWERS OF SEARCH

Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 26, line 39, leave out clause 33.
I contend that clause 33 should be deleted from the Bill because it is a departure from what is usually accepted in Britain as basic justice in police procedures for searching people, with or without warrants. The clause gives the power to police constables within the Merseyside county council area to
(a) search any person who may be reasonably suspected of having in his possession or conveying in any manner any thing stolen or unlawfully obtained; and (b) if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that any thing so stolen or unlawfully obtained may be found in or on any vehicle or vessel, enter upon and search the vehicle or vessel.
The clause thus gives police constables in Merseyside the power to search people, their vessels and their motor cars, without a search warrant and without consulting a magistrate in order to get a search warrant. It can be done simply because a police constable reasonably suspects that someone might have in his possession something that has been stolen. This is, as I have said, a departure from what British law has tradi-

tionally said and provided for. There are very few cases in which it is possible for police constables to stop and search people or to search their motor cars or their vessels without a search warrant.
To give this blanket power, on the basis that the police constable takes it upon himself to suspect somebody, will create great difficulties. Indeed, where it is in existence at the moment in Merseyside, it causes great difficulties. Stop-and-search laws generally have come into very great disrepute, and rightly so.
There is a great deal of suspicion about the way in which the stop-and-search laws are used on Merseyside. If one speaks to the Merseyside community relations council, one is told that there is much anxiety about the way this law is applied to coloured youngsters and black youths on Merseyside. It is very often the coloured immigrant against whom the powers are used.
I urge the House to accept the amendment. I believe that it is wrong to give police constables power to stop and search without requiring them first to have obtained a warrant or to have grounds for suspicion other than those based on a constable's interpretation of what is "reasonable suspicion". I see that the Minister is nodding his head, but nowhere in this legislation is it spelt out that any other person, such as a magistrate, will be involved in determining what is "reasonable suspicion".
I move the amendment in the hope that the clause will be deleted. It is a major civil liberties issue, it will have an adverse effect on many young people, and it causes suspicion amongst the immigrant community on Merseyside. I hope that my amendment will be accepted in the spirit in which it is moved.

Mr. Parry: I support the proposal to delete clause 33. It is significant that if the clause is passed the date on which it will expire is 31 December 1984. There are plenty of "big brothers" in this world without encroaching further on the civil rights of the individual. The police already have sufficient power. Although stop-and-search powers have been used in Liverpool, Bootle and Birkenhead for many years—mainly in the dockland areas—they will now be spread over the whole of Merseyside.
I do not need to remind the House that in Liverpool there has been much disquiet about police public relations. To illustrate that, I need mention only the Jimmy Kelly case and a number of others that have caused serious public concern. The Liverpool trades council has opposed this clause, as, indeed, has the National Council for Civil Liberties. We should oppose the clause and support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. Brittan: I again rise to give the House an indication of the Government's view on this matter. I should make it clear at the outset that I do not agree with the points that were put forward by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and by his colleague, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry).
One should, first of all, look at what the provision of clause 33 permits. Here we come to the question of reasonable suspicion on the part of a police constable that a person whom he wishes to search has in his possession something stolen or unlawfully obtained. I apologise to the hon. Member for Bootle for the inaccurate movement of my head. I suspect that he interpreted a shake of the head for a nod. In fact, I was not agreeing with him when he said that it is simply left to a police constable to decide what is reasonable suspicion. The hon. Member is right to the extent that no one else is given any kind of specific prior veto; nor does it impose on the police constable an obligation to seek permission from anyone before purporting to exercise that power. None the less, the person whom the police constable wishes to search must be reasonably suspected. Afterwards, if there is any dispute about the matter, it will be for the court to decide whether the police constable had reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Mr. Parry: Mr. Parry rose—

Mr. Brittan: I will just develop this point and then I shall give way. It is not sufficient for the police constable to say "Well, I thought he looked suspicious."

The very inclusion of the word "reasonable" must mean that the police constable concerned must satisfy the court,

if he is challenged, on an objective basis that he had good grounds for suspicion. He does not have to satisfy the court that he was right or that the person had anything stolen. He has to satisfy the court that his suspicion was well founded to the extent of being reasonable.

Mr. Parry: Is the Minister aware that under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 more than 1,000 innocent people have been arrested on Merseyside over the past five years who have not been charged? Surely, the Bill will lead to more innocent people being arrested purely on the ground of suspicion. That will cause further bad feeling between the public and the police.

Mr. Brittan: If there were any risk of that happening as a result of the clause, I could understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. However, his argument does not relate to the clause. The clause provides not the power of arrest but the power of search. The issue of charging people does not arise. That arises only if the person resists the search that the police constable has a right to make. If there is resistance, the issue arises of whether the officer had reasonable suspicion. It is only at that stage that the question arises.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Surely the Minister is demonstrating the inbuilt dangers in this measure. If someone is innocent yet the officer has in his mind reasonable suspicion and wants to search that person, difficulty will arise. If I were innocent, I should resist the search. There will be people charged who are innocent. They will be charged not with stealing or having in their possession stolen goods but with offences such as assaulting the policeman or resisting arrest. The clause is fraught with difficulties. That is why stop-and-search laws are causing so much friction between the public and the police.

Mr. Brittan: I do not accept that it is fraught with difficulties. I do not accept that the hon. Gentleman has made out his case. He has said that it is fraught with difficulties, but in no sense has he proved that that is so. Therefore, I do not accept his strictures on the clause.
I am not concerned to defend the existence of the clause as a general power. That is not our concern. We are considering whether it should be applicable


in the county of Merseyside. I accept that there are arguments for and against its availability throughout the country and whether it is a proper provision. I am not saying that there are no arguments to the contrary. I do not wish hon. Members to think that I am saying that it is necessarily right that there should be a general provision. Equally, I accept that there may be room for the view that if there should be such a provision it should apply throughout the country and not merely on Merseyside and in some other areas.
Similarly, if there should not be such a provision, there is a strong case for saying that it should not apply anywhere. I accept that. However, all these issues are being considered by the Royal Commission on criminal procedure. When the Royal Commission reports, we shall be able to decide whether it is right for there to be uniformity throughout the country, for which I believe there is a strong case. If there should be such uniformity, should it be reflected in the general law or in no such provision? For the moment we are dealing with the interim. The issue is what we should do about Merseyside. The right approach to adopt for Merseyside is much the same as the one that we have sought to follow in some other controversial areas. Broadly speaking, that is to maintain the status quo.
The problem with a large part of the county of Merseyside is that a provision of this sort has existed for a long time—in some cases for almost 100 years. It is not a provision that is no longer used and out of date, but it is used extensively by the police, who feel it to be necessary. Surely, it is sensible that, until a national decision is taken as to whether or not it is appropriate for such matters to carry on on a local basis, Merseyside should be allowed to carry on doing what it has done for almost 100 years, in the absence of clear evidence that that is no longer tolerable. Opposition Members have produced no such clear evidence. At the most, they have produced assertions.
I accept that if the Bill is passed in this way, the legislation will be extended over a wider geographical area than is now the case. That is unavoidable because there is no possibility for such

legislation to cover Liverpool alone or the other parts of Merseyside—

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose—

Mr. Brittan: If I may just finish the point, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, there is no possibility for it to cover the other parts of the county where the power exists. There has to be a Merseyside Bill. Therefore, either it is extended to the remaining parts of the county which do not have provision or it is dropped from the large parts of the county which have had the provision for almost 100 years.

Mr. Heffer: The logic of that argument is precisely what an Anglican bishop who finally became a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church argued about miracles. He said that we either accept miracles entirely or not at all. That is not the position in this case. Surely, it can be written into a clause that the powers remain as they are but they are not extended. As that has not been done, the logic is that we cannot accept it.

Mr. Brttan: I do not accept that that is the logic. If we are introducing legislation for Merseyside as a whole, it is not feasible to freeze the position and have a distinction between one part of a county and another Therefore, I conclude that in the absence of proven mischief as opposed to assertive mischief, and with a large part of the county having had the provision for almost 100 years, it is reasonable that it should continue and that the clause should remain in the Bill.

Mr. George Cunningham: I concede that there is great weight in the Minister's last point. The alternative would be to require of the authorities in the area a continuing recognition in their minds of the old boundaries which, until now, they have had to retain because of the old legislation on the statute book. In the normal course of events, it is not reasonable to demand that of them, and, therefore, the situation is unsatisfactory.
We all agree that the sooner the Royal Commision on criminal procedure produces its report, the better. Then, we can make our decision on the matter and the public order review so that there is proper national-based legislation—or a


decision that we do not want national-based legislation on the matter. Hon. Members who attend debates on individual local Acts go through this process every time. It is a different group of hon. Members each time. However, the Minister and I face each other on these occasions, and, therefore, I should stop telling him the same thing every time. Nevertheless, some things need to be repeated.
When we review very old local statutes, we find things that are positively horrifying. Such things would not be put into a statute now. As the statutes went through Parliament, not as Public Bills but as Private and Local Bills, they were not subjected to the rigorous scrutiny that generally applies to a general Public Act.
In 1937 a judgment was given on one of the leading cases involving "sus". "Sus" is the offence of being a suspected person and of loitering with intent. In the case of Ledwith v. Roberts there is a passage towards the end of the judgment that is worth quoting. Mr. Justice Scott was dealing with a Liverpool Act. Indeed, that Act will be almost entirely repealed by the Bill. He referred to section 513 of the Liverpool Corporation Act 1921. Mr. Justice Scott said:
Finally, I would make one more suggestion. If the Liverpool Act of 1921, s.513, and the old London Act of 1839…create different offences and confer different powers of arrest from those of the general law of the land contained in the public statutes, it is surely time to abandon the system of such local variations, whatever may have been their justification in earlier times. To-day crime and personal liberty ought not to vary from town to town as must be the case if they are to depend on municipal variations in 'local and personal' Acts of Parliament. They ought to be the same throughout the length and breadth of the land. Why should such provisions be inserted in local Acts at all?
The hon. Member, the Royal Commission, the Home Office review of public order and, indeed, all of us should keep that weighty opinion in our minds. I therefore repeat that we should steer ourselves in the direction of national legislation on matters that so closely touch civil liberties.

Mr. David Hunt: On behalf of the promoters, I hope that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) will not press

the amendment to a Division. I cannot hope to cover all the allegations that have been made. However, my colleagues and I have full confidence in our police force. It does a first-class job in frequently difficult circumstances.
I shall reiterate two points. First, in the County of Merseyside Bill it is states clearly that the section shall cease to have effect on 31 December 1984. Secondly, the Royal Commission on criminal procedure has specifically invited evidence on this particular power. Obviously, one awaits those recommendations before any further discussion.

Sir Graham Page: Is my hon. Friend aware also that a Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on home affairs is investigating and will be reporting on the same subject?

Mr. Hunt: The House will be delighted by that news. We are comforted by the fact that my right hon. Friend will be chairing the Committee. We look forward to the conclusion of its deliberations. I hope that the hon. Member for Bootle will not press his amendment to a Division.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 74

LICENSING OF ENTERTAINMENTS

Mr. David Hunt: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 66, line 10, leave out 'a' and insert 'any'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient if we deal at the same time with remaining amendments in the name of the sponsor—amendments Nos. 27, 28, 18, and 19 to 26.

Mr. Hunt: I take this opportunity to congratulate the number of people who have been involved in the compilation of this large Bill. The Bill brings together over 300 different local Acts. I pay tribute to the immense amount of hard work that has been done by officials in Merseyside county council and in the district councils. The House is grateful for the hard work that they have done.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 83

DIFFERENTIAL RATING

Amendments made:  No. 27, in page 70 line 33, leave out 'on the' and insert 'as from'.

No. 28, in page 70, line 35, leave out 'as from 31st March' and insert 'on and from 1st April'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Clause 92

REVISION OF TOLLS

Amendments made:  No. 18, in page 76, line 32, leave out 'notice'.

No. 19, in page 76, line 33, after 'area', insert 'a notice'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Clause 107

FOR PROTECTION OF CERTAIN STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS

Amendment made:  No. 20, in page 96, line 19, after 'up' insert 'of'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Schedule 1

PART II

SECTION 29 OF PUBLIC HEALTH ACT 1961 AS HAVING EFFECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 17 OF THIS ACT

Amendments made:  No. 21, in page 132, line 21, leave out 'above' and insert 'of this subsection'.

No.22, in page 132, line 24, leave out 'above' and insert 'of this subsection'.

No. 23, in page 133, line 37, leave out 'above' and insert 'of this section'.

No. 24, in page 133, line 38, leave out 'above' and insert 'of this section'.

No. 25, in page 133, leave out line 41 and insert—
'of this section.
(5B) A person contravening such a notice requiring the deferment of part of the demolition shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £500, but in any proceedings for an offence under this subsection it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.'—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Schedule 5

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Amendment made:  No. 26, in page 148, line 13, column 2, leave out
'The whole Act except section 4'
and insert 'Section 6'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Bill to be read the Third time.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COMMON FISHERIES POLICY)

Postponed proceeding resumed on Question,

That this House takes note of European Community documents R/107/78, R/232/78, S/365/78, R/3012/78, R/3044/78, R/3045/78, 5877/79, 6276/79, 7348/79, 8392/79, 8608/79, 9912/79, 10285/79, 10966/79 and Add. 1, 11035/79, 11104/79, 11292/79, 4096/80, and 4481/80, and supports the Government in its aim of securing an early and comprehensive settlement of the revised Common Fisheries Policy which adequately meets the needs of the United Kingdom Fishing Industry as a whole.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I represent what must be one of the largest European fishing communities, not only of inshore fishermen but for fish processing. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) is not with us, but I assure him that although the majority of trade carried on in my constituency is more of the inshore type, we are behind him. I am pleased to see that the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has returned. I subscribe to his views on trawler fleets. I sympathise with the points that he made.
As has been mentioned, Fishing News for 15 February states in very black print "No aid yet!" If that fact is confirmed when the Minister replies, the paper should have withheld publication until tomorrow morning and been printed with a black edge to show the fishing industry's mourning.
That publication also states:
Proposals for an injection of government cash into the crisis-tern fishing industry have tumbled on to the Whitehall desks this week".
That is the Whitehall desk of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The article goes on:
there is a very slim chance that the government will be reacting immediately to these pleas for help.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has joined us. It is to his credit that he had the meeting with the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation. He told it that the climate was right to make an approach to the Government. I sincerely hope that that is not a false premise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) referred to a meeting at Peterhead in my constituency two weeks ago. It was attended by 700 fishermen. Had it not been for the good offices of members of the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation executive, there would have been virtually a war on the floor. Those men calmed the storm. They will not be able to do that again if there is no aid for the fishing industry.
The article continues:
There will be a lot of pressure falling on the shoulders of Scottish fishing leaders now they are faced with a situation where government aid looks like being delayed.
Fishermen north of the border gave their representatives a deadline of one month to extract some cash from the government. That deadline will be up in two weeks and, if fishermen get no satisfaction, they will be in a very militant mood.
I need not remind my right hon. Friend and his colleagues that when in Opposition they experienced a fishing blockade. Such blockades will be threatened if there is no aid, and that will have serious consequences for Britain and Scotland.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation finds it necessary to suspend indemnity on a myriad of prices because it has already spent £340,000 in the past 10 months and cannot withstand another such year without going into bankruptcy. That is a very sad fact which we must recognise. As the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation, Mr. Jim Lovie, said, it was with much regret that that action was taken.
The fishing industry has proposed to the Secretary of State that minimum prices should be increased and that the finances required should be supported by the Government. Mr. Gilbert Buchan, the chairman of that organisation, suggested that to the Minister today, and I sincerely hope that the Minister has found time to study the document and will give us a satisfactory reply when he replies tonight.
We are debating a motion to take note of the documents on EEC fisheries policy. But, sadly enough, we do not have a common fisheries policy. That


is why the British fishing industry is in dire straits.
I support the tributes paid by other hon. Members to the British federation for its forbearance and tolerance towards the many restrictions that have been placed upon it in the past few years. Ever since we entered the EEC, we have been saddled with the fact that there is no common fisheries policy. The fault lies at the door of past Conservative and Labour Governments.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In fact, the problem is that we have a common fisheries policy which is due to come into force in 1982. That is why it is so difficult to come to an agreement with our partners, who want to stand firm on the existing common fisheries policy which was established in 1972 just before we joined.

Mr. McQuarrie: But we do not have a proper common fisheries policy today, and that is one reason why Ministers cannot get any restructuring of the fleet.
We have 390 sheets of typed paper associated with the motion. But it is abundantly clear that these documents—and I have read every single page of them—can do nothing for the present crisis in the British fishing industry. Many of the documents have been superseded by other regulations, and the bulk of the proposals seem to be geared to the advantage of other member States and Third World countries rather than that of the United Kingdom.
It is well known that the British fishing industry has entered a period of recession which will be far worse than anything in the post-war era. There are no simple explanations for this, but it is of paramount importance that the failure to secure a proper common fisheries policy has been the major factor. Even the total allowable catch for 1980 is quite unacceptable to the fishing industry, and the Scottish fleet will be the worst sufferers.
Even if the United Kingdom were to receive 50 per cent. of the total allowable catch, there would be a shortfall in the domestic landings compared with national demand, which would worry the processing industry. Many people in my constituency are employed in this industry.

The industry employs 18,000 people on shore and it has invested £17 million in the fishing industry which should not be put at risk because we lack both a policy and the necessary finance.
We should ensure that the total allowable catch is increased. Although there is no proper common fisheries policy, the United Kingdom fleet is rendered subject to many restrictions which are contained in these documents and we would be failing in our duty if we did not come to the rescue of the industry now. But time is not on our side.
I welcome the efforts that my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues are making in Brussels, but I stress that we just cannot wait for the new CEP to be brought into effect if we are to save our industry. One of our greatest problems is that of cheap imports of foreign fish. In the 12 months to December 1979, imports of fresh and chilled fish rose from 71,830 tonnes to 100,182 tonnes. Imports of frozen fish also rose, from 86,665 tonnes to 104,571 tonnes. These figures clearly illustrate the disastrous effect of these imports on the Brish fishing industry. They have deflated the prices that our fishermen get at the ports. While some imports of fish are vital to fish processors and consumers in general—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I think that the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) will be aware, even if his pipe is not alight, that tobacco has not been approved of in the House for hundreds of years.

Mr. McQuarrie: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's pipe will not catch fire so that we lose his presence from the House.
I accept that some imports of fish are vital to fish processors and consumers in general, but cheap imported fish is being sold at such low prices that it is now uneconomic for our own vessels to go to sea. Our industry can take no more.
The documents detail all the tariffs and rights that member States enjoy in British waters. But nowhere do the documents restrict unlimited cheap imports from member States. Many Third World States can also import cheap fish at very low tariffs or no tariffs at all.
Another factor not considered in the documents is the dramatic effect of increased fuel prices on the fishing fleet. In the course of 1979, the price of marine gas oil increased by about 46 per cent. In the month of January alone it increased by a further 6 per cent., with no financial return to the fishermen and ever-decreasing prices at the ports for the landed fish catches.
I do not consider that a fuel subsidy is a feasible solution to the problem. There would be many difficulties in its operation. It would be unfair to some vessels that need to go out for only a day or two to catch their quota. In addition, any fuel subsidy would be a contravention of the competition rules of the European Community, although it is rumoured, as hon. Members have mentioned, that certain member States are giving a subsidy but not disclosing it within the Community.
We must look to other methods to save the industry from the disaster that will continue to threaten it until the problem of the common fisheries policy is resolved. I should like to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister of State whether the Government have any positive plans to save the industry from extinction. If the plans cannot be met by reference to the documents, the Government must consider unilateral action, bearing in mind that 68 per cent. of the fish caught by Community vessels is caught in British waters.
Can my hon. Friend say whether he has considered an operating subsidy or a tonnage payment based on fish landed by a vessel? Is he prepared to consider a minimum price scheme that has been presented to him and to which I have referred? Such a scheme is permissible under article 6 of regulation 100/76, which permits member States to make aid available to producer organisations in several forms to cover part of the intervention within the meaning of article 2. This system is being operated in France. Why should it not be operated in the United Kingdom? We have had experience of France breaking the rules in respect of lamb and other items.
Unfortunately, any scheme of financial aid for the fishing industry is not adequately covered in the documents. But there is no reason why her Majesty's

Government should not introduce schemes that are contrary to those set out in the documents, as other member States are doing at present. I would not suggest that we jeopardise the negotiations taking place in Brussels with a view to securing a new common fisheries policy, but during this critical period the industry is entitled to expect unorthodox methods to be adopted by the Government. I am sure that our Ministers are perfectly capable of persuading the other member States that the circumstances are exceptional and call for urgent action.
I should like to hear the view of my hon. Friend the Minister on the laying-up process described in the documents which permits member States to grant a premium of 8 per cent. of construction cost or the purchase value of the vessel. The Community document stipulates that if the laying-up period was less than 250 days, the premium would be granted only to vessels registered before 1 January 1969 and the laying-up period would be for not less than 90 consecutive days.
Such a scheme would, I am sure, receive the approval of the pelagic fleet and could cover the period March to June, when there is little opportunity for the pelagic fleet to fish. If even 50 vessels could he laid up for that period, the scheme would cost only £1·4 million, which, as right hon. and hon. Members know, is a small sum compared with the vast amounts of money being handed to British Leyland and British Steel.
It is quite clear that the documents do not offer salvation to the British fleet in its present desperate plight. I want my hon. Friend to tell us tonight that he will not offer words of comfort but will offer hard cash in some form or other. Nothing less will do. Present conservation policies will guarantee a buoyant fishing industry in the future long after the oil and the gas have gone, but only if my hon. Friend delivers the goods now. Failure to do so will mean the ruin of an industry that has contributed to the economy of the country for centuries.
We cannot and we must not fail the industry in its hour of need. These documents are not the answer to the problem. We should have the answer in this House, and we look to my hon. Friend the Minister to provide it when he replies to the debate.

Mr. John Golding: It is a pleasure to speak about the conservation of salmon, and I do so as an angler who perhaps plays his part in conservation by actually not catching any salmon. The protection of salmon will help all those who fish. I speak particularly of those of modest means—those thousands of anglers who belong to associations. They fish in Wales, on the Dovey, the Teifi and the Towy. In England there are the big associations, particularly the Birmingham Anglers, who own so much water on the Wye and the Severn. In Scotland I have the River Spey in mind.
I speak for those who fish on day tickets and from their chalets, and on weekly tickets when they are on holiday. Fishing of all kinds is a popular sport. The aristocracy and the powerful have the best water, as they have the best seats at the Cup Final, but salmon fishing is no longer an exclusive pastime. It is an irony that as the number of anglers increases so the number of salmon to be caught in our rivers has shrunk. The salmon of which I talk originate and grow in our rivers, migrate to the coast of Greenland, the Faroes, the Norwegian Sea and elsewhere, and feed there before returning to the river of origin to breed.
Salmon often have a hard time of it before leaving our rivers. Water extraction, crazy land drainage schemes that alter our rivers, acid rainfall and the use of chemicals in agriculture are all harmful and should be investigated.
When young salmon get into the sea, life is harder than it used to be for them. Their food is being taken from the sea on a massive scale, as, for example, off the North American coast. Not only is the salmon's food netted in the feeding grounds, but the salmon are also netted. There is at present a quota off Greenland. It is imperative that the British Government resist any demand to increase that quota.
Netting is a menance, especially the use of monofilament hang nets or drift nets, which many now argue should be totally prohibited. To save the salmon on their way home, we need also to phase out drift net fisheries, restrict estuary netting and control tidal water fishing. But who will do that? Only the Government can

achieve those objectives.
The Government must take a tougher line with the EEC, which obviously takes too little interest at present in the subject of salmon conservation. For example, no mention was made of salmon at the conference on fisheries in European waters—perhaps because the only countries with salmon rivers are Great Britain, Ireland, and France. The others are only too willing to plunder our seas.
The point the Government must grasp—the point that they must drive home in Europe—is that these are not European salmon; they are Atlantic salmon. That is why we should respond to the United States Government's initiative, which followed the Edinburgh symposium organised by the British Atlantic Salmon Research Trust and the American International Atlantic Salmon Foundation.
The United States draft treaty starts with article 66 of the United Nations law of the sea conference. Roughly stated—it is an important principle—it says that the country of origin has the primary interest in and responsibility for the salmon.
The draft treaty provides for
A prohibition of salmon fishing outside an area 12 miles from the shore of any country belonging to the proposed convention.
It provides for
A quota for salmon catches in the Convention area which would not exceed the average for the period 1976–78.
It also provides for
The establishment of a Commission to:
(a) provide a forum for Atlantic salmon study and co-operation.
(b) provide scientific research.
(c) compile statistics of salmon.
(d) make proposals for the purpose of conserving and developing Atlantic salmon stocks. Such proposals to come into force after a 60 day period, but allowance made for objections to such proposals by a member of the Convention."
It provides further for
The enforcement of the agreed proposals to be carried out by each Convention country within its own 200 mile limit—outside that area any Convention country to enforce the proposals.
I hope that the Government will take that draft treaty seriously. I ask the Minister whether it is possible for us to become a party to such a treaty. If not, if our membership of the EEC prevents our becoming a party to that draft treaty,


what action do Her Majesty's Government intend to take to achieve the objective of saving the Atlantic salmon—an objective that I believe to be very worth while?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the Front Bench speeches will start at 11 o'clock. My eye has already been caught by seven hon. Members. The arithmetic I leave to hon. Members.

Mr. Robert Hicks: My right hon. Friend, in opening, was correct to emphasise the importance of his objective to obtain as quickly as possible a common fisheries policy that was not only effective and enforceable but advantageous to this country. Until we attain the agreement, the essential decisions that must be made by the United Kingdom fishing industry will remain unmade, with all the accompanying uncertainties and anxieties to which various hon. Members have referred.
This period of indecision has been allowed to drag on for far too long. It has accentuated the problems facing the industry which have arisen independently of the EEC dimension. The withdrawal from the traditional long distance waters of Iceland and Norway has imposed tremendous burdens and strains on our deep-sea fishing fleet, and the need to make the necessary structural changes in the industry to meet the new circumstances has been inhibited by the uncertainty of the precise form the common fisheries policy will take and the opportunities and scope that will exist for United Kingdom fishermen.
It is essential to retain the agreement of the House as a whole in the EEC fishing negotiations. Mistakes have been made by Labour and Conservative Governments, but for the past few years those of us who have regularly contributed to the annual fishing debate have presented a united front. It is important that we continue to do so.
I represent a Cornish constituency that has a significant and exclusively inshore fishing interest. We were very grateful, in Looe, to have my hon. Friend the Minister of State to meet the local fishermen on their patch at the end of last year. As a result of his discussions with them, I hope that his understanding of the West

Country inshore fishing industry and its problems will be the greater.
I recognise that our first objective in the negotiations must be to secure an adequate and exclusive coastal zone. I hope that that will be a minimum of 12 miles. In the 12 to 50-mile zone, the United Kingdom must have dominant access based on our nation's contribution in terms of fish stocks and established fishing patterns. Likewise, outside the 50 miles in the Community pool the United Kingdom quota of the total allowable catch must also reflect the same criteria.
It is encouraging that agreement has been reached within the Community on the establishment of total allowable catches based on scientific evidence. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister's confidence is justified. A few years ago the scientists of his Department stated that 400,000 tonnes of mackerel could be fished in our waters without prejudicing future stocks. Within 18 months those same scientists said that only 260,000 tonnes of mackerel could be caught. That suggests to me that reliance on the professional scientist must not be exclusive.
I always remind myself of the wisdom and local nous of some of the senior fishermen in my constituency. They recall the days of the early 1920s when herring was the predominant catch in our coastal waters. The herrings disappeared. Subsequently, the pilchards were the predominant catch. They also disappeared. Now we have the benefit of the mackerel stocks. But there is concern. Unless we take note of the fears expressed by local fishermen based on generations of practical experience, I believe that the mackerel could disappear before the measures announced by Ministers come into effect.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The point that my hon. Friend has made could not be more true. When the Ministry's expert witnesses gave evidence for the first time to a Select Committee investigation, they denied the assertion of the West Country fishermen that mackerel enclosed in a purse seine net would die within 24 hours of being released.
When the Select Committee took evidence verifying that assertion from the Icelandic and Norwegian fishery laboratories, and then recalled the Ministry's witnesses and confronted them with that evidence, they agreed that they had been


wrong in their first evidence and confirmed the evidence given and the West Country fishermen's statements.

Mr. Hicks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was the point that I was about to make. It is important to have an effective catch-reporting mechanism within the Community.
My hon. Friend was right to refer to the sad experience in respect of mackerel that have been dumped at sea after they have been caught, simply because the existing method of catch allocation has been based on man-days. Once the larger vessels caught an excess of their allowed catch, they dumped the mackerel. The mackerel that had been either dumped or transferred to other vessels at sea evaded the Ministry records.
It is important to emphasise to my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friend the Minister of State the experiences that have taken place in the South-West in mackerel fishing. When my right hon. Friend places his reliance upon Community catch supervision, he must take account of our experiences and ensure that the method that evolves to monitor and supervise the catches is the most effective that could be achieved.
My right hon. Friend must be conscious of the practical difficulties that could arise as he moves towards what we hope will be the United Kingdom signing of an effective and meaningful common fisheries policy. In doing so, it is right to point out some of the practical problems that could occur, especially those facing our inshore fishing industry in Devon and Cornwall.
The problems have been heightened, regrettably, because our long distance water trawlers and other large vessels have been obliged to come to the mackerel fishing grounds of South-West England. I gather that the South-West mackerel fishing area is now our largest single fishing sector. The presence of these large vessels from Scotland, Ulster, Humberside and Fleetwood has made conditions in many ways quite intolerable in our coastal waters. It has put enormous pressure on the mackerel industry.
There is a danger that our inshore fishing industry—which plays such a vital part in our local economy—is being placed in jeopardy.
I hope that my right hon. Friend is successful in finding an advantageous common fisheries policy agreement for Britain. I remind him that even when he has achieved that he has still to resolve the problem of the distribution of the mackerel catch within our exclusive coastal zones. He must do nothing at that stage that would be detrimental to the interests of the South-West inshore fishing industry.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: On the last occasion when we had a debate on fisheries, which took place in the early hours of the morning, I did not join the prevailing chorus of gloom and despondency about the industry. I feel that I must join that chorus tonight and thus make it pretty well universal. I hope that the Minister is quite clear about how universal are the cries of protest coming from the industry.
I did not join the chorus on that earlier occasion because, as the Member of Parliament for Britain's foremost fishing port, I drew attention to Grimsby's success in fighting back from the problems besetting the distant water fleet by building up the small boat effort and to some extent, although not totally, compensating for the decline in distant water catches by the catches from our seine netters. We pulled ourselves up by our own boot straps, and it was a successful operation.
That success is now threatened by the problems besetting the whole industry. It is a crisis which could well be fatal for some ports. It will certainly set back the recovery in Grimsby, which has always had a precarious economy. That crisis is universal in the industry, because it is now caught in the squeeze of pincers produced, on the one hand, by falling receipts. Catches are down because of the over fishing that is now taking place as well as the present quotas. Receipts have also suffered because of the flood of imports that are now coming into the country. On the other hand, constantly escalating costs represent the other side of the pincers, particularly fuel costs. Indeed, the price of oil is due to rise again shortly. A combination of those factors has produced a series of problems and difficulties, not on quite the scale of the Icelandic setback but verging that way.
Last week, it was announced that H. L. Taylor, one of Grimsby's oldest trawling firms, which has been trawling since the turn of the century, was to lay up its eight trawlers. That represents 100 jobs. Each time a trawler is laid up, it is like the closing down of a factory. The ratio is five jobs on shore to every job at sea. Therefore, one can imagine the ripple-back effects into the community.
I have the accounts of Lindsay Trawlers, another Grimsby firm, which show that up to the end of December 1979 the operating loss was £120,000 on six trawlers. Not one of those trawlers made a profit. I heard yesterday that one of them will not go back to sea. The same problem affects British United Trawlers, with 12 trawlers. That firm is in the same situation.
In other words, there is a danger that within a matter of weeks the entire distant water effort in. Grimsby will cease fishing. That is the urgency of the case for aid. It is that desperate. It is so desperate that the kind of bromides that we have had from the Secretary of State today are not satisfactory in terms of the situation which the industry, particularly in Grimby, faces.
Closures on that scale mean more than a threat to jobs. They are a threat to the landings in the port. The vessels that are about to be laid up or are in danger of being laid up bring in 41 per cent. of local landings in Grimsby. That is the basis of the Grimsby fish market. It means that there is a knock-on effect in charges, because Grimsby is not a small, land-your-own fish port. It is an expensive operation. It is faced with heavy costs through the British Transport Docks Board, modernisation charges and lumper charges, which, while making it an efficient port, also make it an expensive one. If the distant water trawlers close up entirely, all those costs will fall on the seine netter fleet. In other words, the distant water vessels which carried 40 per cent. of the cost to the port of Grimsby will now be out, and those costs will fall in total on the seine netters.
The tragedy is that our seine netter fleet, which is about 183 strong, is much more footloose than the distant water fleet. It can move on and leave the port. The danger that Grimsby faces is a

straightforward one of snowballing decline produced by these closures. That would be a disaster for Grimsby, because the port is central to our country's fishing industry.
That is not a piece of special pleading. The whole industry focuses on the kind of market that Grimsby provides for the whole country. A high proportion of the fish landed everywhere, be it Scotland, inshore ports or imported landings, goes to the market in Grimsby.
Our distribution system at Grimsby supplies much of the country. It is interconnected. The port supports the market, the market supports the distribution system, and the distribution system keeps the industry going. If one of those links is knocked away, there is a danger to the whole structure. A threat to one is a threat to the whole system. No Government can stand idly by in this sort of crisis and danger. I am convinced that a Labour Government would not have stood by and let this situation develop without help, without plans for the restructuring of the industry and without aiding the industry, even if only temporarily.
The fishing industry is now struggling for survival. The Government might believe in market forces, in everything from steel to Japanese tailoring. But market forces cannot be a dominant consideration in the sort of crisis that we now face. The big European fishing Powers are all keeping a massive fishing effort in being to survive—on the principle that the survivor inherits the settlement. But if we do not survive they inherit our fish stocks. It is no use negotiating and arguing for the best possible settlement in the EEC if we do not have the fishing effort to support it. We have already had a more severe rundown in our industry than any country in Europe, and we cannot stand another rundown on the scale that is now threatened.
We are perilously close to a situation where we shall no longer be able to catch our plaice quota The vessels that fish for plaice are the vessels that are now being laid off.
Market forces do not apply when the competition is subsidised on the scale that we are now witnessing. There is a fuel subsidy of 10 centimes a litre in France. Lay-up, scrapping aid and restructuring


aid are available in Germany. Aid for exploratory trips is also available there. I saw the effect of that when I was in New Zealand last year. Industry is aided in Denmark. In Holland 42 beam trawlers, with horse-powers from 1,600 to 2,500, are being built, presumably to rape our fishing grounds. Those vessels must be subsidised. No one in his right mind would build them without subsidy.
We are struggling for survival against subsidised competition. That is a case for aid. I am not saying that there is a need for overwhelming aid. We simply need enough to keep the industry going during the crisis.
The Minister said that we have 26 per cent. of the fishing effort of the fleet but only 17 per cent. of the aid provided by Governments in the Market. That indicates that there is a case for aid. There is a need for action soon. I can merely suggest some outlines of aid as, tragically, there is a need to be brief in a debate such as this.
First, there must be, by collective effort, pressure to put up the official withdrawal prices—OWPs—on the Continent. They are the basis for the price system, and they are well out of kilter with what the market needs. We need a substantial increase, because as long as OWPs are so low in the Common Market countries there is a direct incentive to land the fish and flood our ports. The industry on the Continent surely does not need any further incentive with the pound at its present high level. The incentive needs to be minimised as far as possible. We also need direct financial aid for the industry. That could be given either through a fuel subsidy or through the sort of price support subsidy that the industry is urging, in which the Government would underpin prices to allow our prices on fish caught by our fishermen to be increased.
There is also a need for a Government-planned and financed restructuring system so that the industry can go on reconstructing and re-equipping itself with the kinds of vessels it needs to cope with our new opportunities in British waters.
There is also a case for help on dock charges. This is perhaps a plea that is peculiar to Grimsby, but it is very impor-

tant for Grimsby because we are central to the whole distribution system. We are competing with docks on the Continent, which seem to be largely supported by local government and are not financed by the industry in the way that our industry has to carry the entire burden of charges here.
There is a strong case for an emergency levy. Given that we are now facing what amounts to a dumping crisis, and with the pressures from the Continent and the high value of the pound, an emergency crisis should produce an emergency levy on imports, particularly on those that are not coming through the markets and are not bearing their share of costs in this country. On a longer-term basis, we need a levy on the flood of frozen fish that is coming in and which, again, is a threat to prices in our markets and to prices of the fish caught by our vessels.
Those are the problems that need immediate attention. As long as those problems remain, it would be ludicrous if this country—which had the biggest fishing fleet, brings the richest fishing grounds to the Common Market and contributes 70 per cent. of the catch—finished up by importing its own fish. The Continental countries, with their massive fishing fleets, are driving our industry out of business by flooding our markets with our fish at cut prices. That is the kind of position that we are now in, and it can be overcome only by help from the Government.
I would have liked to deal with the Common Market negotiations but there is not time for me to do that.
I have to put to the Minister that there is a fear in the industry that the Government are ready to see it slide down-hill in this kind of fashion because it will make the Government's negotiating position easier if in the final outcome they have only to get the catch that is appropriate to the slimmed-down industry that we shall almost certainly have unless they act promptly to aid the industry.
I am sure that the Minister recognises the vital importance of fishing to this country, but he must also recognise that he has to act on both fronts, because the two problems are interdependent and a better deal on one does not remove the need for a better deal on the other. Without the aid, we do not survive to


inherit the settlement. Without a satisfactory deal, there will be nothing to inherit. Fishing needs both.

Mr. John Townend: Although the two fishing towns in my constituency—Filey and Bridlington—are inshore fishing towns, my constituency borders on Hull and many of my constituents work there. I therefore endorse the remarks of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson). The position in the fishing industry there can only be described as tragic. The fish docks are like a graveyard, with the deep-freeze trawlers laid up.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West spoke of the two shackles on the industry. I agree with him that two shackles have been put on the industry. He said that one was put on when the last Conservative Government took us into the Common Market and accepted a common fisheries policy which did not protect our interests. It hurts me to have to agree that that is correct. But the other shackle was put on the industry when the opportunity to put that matter right went by default and the prevous Labour Government failed to look after the fishing industry's problems at the time of the renegotiation.
There is no doubt that the complete decline of the deep sea fishing industry cannot be laid at the door of the EEC. As the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) said, much of the decline was caused by the loss of the Icelandic waters. It became clear that the industry would have to adapt, and that as the distant water industry declined there would be scope for expansion in near water and medium water fishing. This is exactly what Bridlington has done over the last decade. During the past 10 years the amount of fishing weight landed there has doubled. The number of boats has increased to nearly 50 and the sales amount to £2·8 million.
This has made Bridlington the third largest English inshore fishing port after Shields and Grimsby, and it employs 200 people plus a number of ancillary workers. In an area of high unemployment—it is an intermediate area—this industry is absolutely vital to the local

economy. The expansion ground to a halt in 1979, partly due to tighter quotas.
As many of my colleagues have said today, there are two major problems facing the inshore fishermen. The first is the low quayside price paid for fish. We have heard that this has been caused by hidden and open subsidies, but low prices are also caused by illegal fishing, irresponsible fishing and over-fishing Many Governments turn a blind eye to blatant illegal fishing and the products of such fishing are exported to our market at low prices.
One of the problems that we face in the Common Market is that we have not come to terms with the fact that European Governments, industry and people have a different attitude from the people of this country towards rules and regulations. I have come to the conclusion that at times Britain is the only country that obeys the rules.
The second problem that faces fishermen is the soaring cost of fuel and the high interest charges. This applies especially to the inshore ports, where many of the boats have been leased by one man or a joint partnership and the interest charges are a heavy burden. With decreasing sales and rising costs, eventually large parts of the industry will face bankruptcy if something is not done soon.
In general I am opposed to Government subsidies for industry, but this type of industry not only needs encouragement; it deserves it. Opposition Members may laugh, but I am not about to suggest that the industry receives cash subsidies. This Government are committed to helping and encouraging small businesses, and many of the boats are small businesses; they are owned wholly or partly by their skippers or their crews.
No industry is more deserving of help. The work force does not strike; it is hard working and it is courageous. It is much more deserving than British Leyland. What we need at present are import levies. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not say tonight that what I have suggested would be against the rules. If it were against the rules for a short time the rules would have to be bent or broken. We should, perhaps, take a leaf out of the French book.
I am sure that we can depend on the Minister to take a very tough line with


the European Community in his negotiations, and that he will fulfil the pledges that the Conservative Party has consistently made both at the election and since then. I trust that he will remind his colleagues in the EEC that many hon. Members who support the Common Market wholeheartedly will have to reconsider their position if we do not get a fair deal on the budget and on the fishing negotiations so that we get an adequate share of the fish from our waters.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). I think that at one point he was saying that the trouble with the Europeans is that they are not British, which is undoubtedly true.
This is one of those historic occasions when I find myself in agreement with something that was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). He said that what is happening is that the fishing industry is restructuring itself as a result of crude market forces and for a variety of other reasons.
Fisherman, as we have been told repeatedly, are going out of business, as are many processors on shore. Only a few weeks ago a long-established family firm in Eye worth, in my constituency, went into liquidation. Boats are being laid up. The saddest thing about boats being laid up is that for obvious reasons the newest and best equipped boats are too often involved. One of the reasons is unfair competition, which introduces impossible trading pressures. A second reason is the high interest rates that fishermen are facing. The owners of newer boats have to carry the heavier loans and overdrafts. The Government have imposed high interest rates, and these owners will face the greatest difficulties.
Meanwhile, the Danes are providing laying-up payments for fishermen who want to leave the industry. The Germans are giving special support. The French are paying fuel subsidies. The Dutch are even expanding their fleet. The Norwegians are protecting literally every aspect of their fishing industry. That includes catching, processing and boat building. The Norwegians are so successful in protecting their boat building in-

dustry that they are exporting new fishing vessels into the United Kingdom. They are doing that on the strength of subsidies, thereby ruining our fishermen and our fishing boat builders.
Our industry is in a desperate state. We are having threats bandied about of blockading fishing ports and Sullom Voe. I sincerely hope that that will not be necessary. I hope that when the Minister of State replies he will allay the fears of fishermen throughout the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State must follow the example of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Depttord (Mr. Silkin). He must fight hard to win back some of the rights that were sold down the river by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he negotiated our entry into the EEC.
I was worried when I heard about the agreement that had been reached on total allowable catches. It seems to be a concession that was made during the negotiations without an agreement on quotas, exclusive zones or preferential zones. Another card was being played with no noticeable gain being achieved. The clock is ticking on. By 31 December 1982 European fishing vessels will be able to come right up our beaches. The day is not so far away.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that the quotas that will be agreed in due course will be fair and that they will be enforced. The hon. Gentleman said earlier, in reply to an intervention from the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), that the quantity of fish—mackerel, or whatever—that is killed or dumped in the course of purse seining and wasted will be taken into account.

Mr. Robert Hughes: How?

Mr. Home Robertson: I am sure that I do not know how that will be taken into account. I know that the Minister is very clever, but I do not think that he can explain how account will be taken. Does he expect purse seiners to return to port and to say "Excuse me, sir, we have just dumped so many hundred tonnes of fish that we did not want to land"?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It was exactly for that reason that the Select Committee recommended that it should be an offence for which the master of the vessel


and the vessel itself should lose their licences to catch.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am far too new at this job to indulge in debates about Select Committees with the hon. Member for Tiverton. However, that sounds to me like a sensible recommendation. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us a little more about the proposals for reporting-in schemes. How are their precursors working within the common fisheries policy?—not that there is such a thing yet. Fishing vessel skippers are going into ports, particularly on the mainland of Europe, and telling fairy tales about how much they have landed or caught. How are the reporting-in schemes, quotas, and so on to be policed? The existing enforcement effort being carried out seems to be inadequate.
It is worth drawing the attention of the Minister to a problem of detail in the rigid enforcement of by-catch quotas for our fleet. When prices for certain fish are low, it presents a temptation to our fishermen to discard catches of fish that are not marketable because they want to be able to be allowed to land more of the more lucrative species of fish.
It has been said repeatedly that the industry needs direct intervention and assistance before long. Hopes have been raised. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) has already quoted from tomorrow's Fishing News, and I shall quote further from it:
The clamour for financial aid came at the instigation of George Younger, Secretary of State for Scotland, who told the Scottish Fishermen's Federation that the climate was ripe to make an approach to government.
I appreciate that the Secretary of State for Scotland may be a little ruffled now—I would be if I were in his shoes, having learnt that Mr. Teddy Taylor is likely to get the Conservative nomination for South end, East. However, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has no such reason to be ruffled. Again, I quote from Fishing News: 
The situation was put into perspective this week by Fisheries Minister, Peter Walker, who told Fishing News that any aid would be linked to a settlement of the Common Fisheries Policy which could be around June.
Many would reckon that that is too late. Certainly, my constituents in Eyemouth, Dunbar, Port Seton, St. Abbs, and so on, feel that they cannot continue to survive

the unfair black market competition from cheap imported fish. I gather that there has been an instance of fillets from the Netherlands being landed at Shields for £2·50 per stone. Our fishermen cannot cope with that sort of competition. We hope urgently that the Minister will be able to give them some encouragement when he winds up the debate.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Briefly, I shall remind the House and my right hon. Friend of the recommendations of the old Select Committee on trade and industry in its report on the British fishing industry which have yet to be put into effect. It recommended that there should be a ban on dumping at sea which has two harmful effects.
First, the records become fudged. In that respect, the first time that we had witnesses from Felixstowe before us, they denied the assertions of West Country fishermen that when a mackerel shoal was enclosed in a net and subsequently released it was to all intents and purposes dead. However, we took evidence on that point from the Icelandic marine laboratory at Reykjavik and the joint permanent secretary to the Norwegian Department of Fisheries at Bergen, and the experts from both confirmed that. The Icelandic expert said that the mackerel is a neurotic fish which becomes so excited when it is enclosed in a net that it uses up all the oxygen in the water immediately surrounding it and suffers irreversible brain damage from inoxia. Although it may be true that when released into the sea it is alive, we should assume that within 24 hours it will be dead.
The second harmful effect is that the bottom of the sea becomes covered in dead fish, so that when there is trawling for demersal fish the otherwise marketable fish become contaminated with rotting, dead fish so that they become unmarketable. That was foreseen three years ago by the Select Committee. However, no Government have carried out its recommendations. We also foresaw the difficulty of monitoring catches. One is not monitoring catches iffish that are caught and released dead into the sea do not count as a catch.
The Eastern zone factory ships offer a good price. They underweigh. They


book 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. less than they have taken. The records show far less than has been transferred. As a result, all the calculations about the attrition of the breeding stock are wrong in absolute terms and in terms of the year classes of that stock. The records are meaningful only if fish are caught when they come to fruition, at the right size and in sequence.
A tripartite Select Committee spent a lot of effort and public money in order to find out the facts and make recommendations. There is not much point in doing that if the Committee is ignored by Government after Government. It is no good saying that it is difficult to monitor dumping at sea. It is difficult to monitor murder, but that is no reason for not making murder a major offence. That is why we recommended the draconian penalty of removing the licence from the vessel and from the master.
Fishermen observe what other fishermen do. As a result, it is a little easier to detect dumping at sea. When we went out on maritime reconnaissance aircraft, we were astonished at what could be seen. Very often we were unobserved by the fishermen below. The Minister should ensure that the total allowable catch does not become a political figure. He should not believe that British is best as regards scientific advice. If we had paid more attention to the absolutely accurate reports of the Icelandic fisheries laboratories during the cod war, we would not have taken the position that we took. They were right and we were wrong. There is a danger in multi-party negotiations—as there was with the International Commission on Exploration of the Sea—that the limits fixed may become political limits. Everyone may agree to those limits, but they are not necessarily related to the breeding habits of fish.
The tasks that were set were difficult. However, those tasks will become more difficult when Spain and Portugal join the EEC. They fished out their own waters. They fished out also the West African coast until the States there began to buy fishery protection vessels. They would now like to fish out our waters. The coming task will be much more difficult. We should bring in the measures suggested by the Select Committee. It will be less difficult if we do so before

Spain and Portugal join the EEC. That is the only effective way of safeguarding our breeding stocks.

Mr. George Foulkes: First, I should like to state that fishing in Scotland is not confined to the East Coast and the Islands, as the Secretary of State, who represents Ayr, will confirm. The Clyde is an important area. Concern about fishing spans the country and crosses political barriers.
Last Saturday I met fishermen from Girvan and Maidens in my constituency. Together with those from Ballantrae and Dunure, they comprise an important fishing resource in our area. They are independent, hardworking and, as I found last Saturday, fairly agitated. Their view is stark and a little frightening, but there is evidence to support it. They believe that the European countries want our fleet to go to the wall and thus eliminate future competition from the United Kingdom. They believe that the European countries are undermining our fleet by hidden subsidies and over fishing and then dumping the excess catch over the border, here in the United Kingdom. They feel that very strongly.
The Ayrshire fleet can provide strong evidence to support that. Its herring catch is limited because of restrictions and quotas. Cod that is processed and brought to Scotland from Europe arrives at £1·60 per stone. Cod caught in the waters of Scotland and brought into the United Kingdom by Scottish fishermen costs £2·80 per stone, yet those fishermen are efficient. The evidence is clear. Other countries must be dumping their surpluses or are heavily subsidised, much more heavily than the Secretary of State indicated.
I should like to make three points. First, I support what has been said. We must seriously consider the type of fuel subsidy that the French are introducing. We are always hearing from the French that they are the great Europeans and we are not. However, we stick by regulations and suffer by them. For all their expression of being great Europeans, the French appear to break them. I add my voice to the call to introduce subsidies.
Secondly, we must monitor and control the catch. The Secretary of State said that there was to be Community catch


reporting. I have read in the newspapers that all member States except Britain have been bound by a gentleman's agreement. I wonder how strong that agreement is. In the United Kingdom, fisheries inspectors are efficient and keep an eye on the level of catch, but that is not so in other countries. How will we carefully monitor catches made by other countries?
Thirdly, the fishermen in Ayrshire are concerned about herring. They will be allowed only 20 weeks, from June to October, to fish herring. Processors and retailers understandably look elsewhere during the rest of the year in order to keep their outlets going. They look to Iceland and Canada and they enter into contracts for 52 weeks of the year. We should consider a moratorium on imported herring during the weeks that our fishermen are allowed to catch them.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), I support the principle of European co-operation and our membership of the Community. I say strongly and clearly that that support in principle does not mean that we cannot criticise operations and practices of the Community. I aver that it comes better from those of us who are in favour of the principle of the European Community, because our viewcannot be said to be distorted. We can criticise far more objectively.
On this issue, my view is that we can best achieve our aims in the short term through unilateral action on the questions of subsidy, control and monitoring. In the longer term, we can best achieve our aim through the common fisheries policy and European co-operation, but that needs strong, firm, and, if necessary, belligerent action by Ministers. When I read that Britain has adopted a "conciliatory stance" at the meeting of EEC Fisheries Ministers, I say that it is time to take off the gloves and go in fighting on behalf of the fishermen of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I come immedately to the central issue of the debate tonight. That issue is not the many and complex documents that form the basis of our discussions, nor the negotiations leading up to the CFP, crucial as they are to our industry.
The central concern of all hon. Members has been the immediate crisis afflicting our fishing industry. I hope that the Minister of State will address himself primarily to that when he replies to the debate tonight.
The crisis is caused by cheap imports, which have cut sharply the returns of our fishermen. These imports are from third countries, such as Canada and Iceland, which have benefited from the general extension of limits and, as a consequence, catch more fish. Worst of all, the imports come also from member States of the Community, and this means fish caught by EEC fishermen who are using grounds where they have no business. In doing so they are in total defiance of the Community's conservation measures.
Surely no one in the House could regard this as other than totally unacceptable. The livelihoods of our fishermen are being jeopardised by fish that are caught illegally by our partners. There is no disagreement in the House. The presence of so many Members at this relatively late hour and the content of speeches from Members of all parties are absolutely clear indications that the House is insistent that we get effective action to provide temporary assistance to this valuable industry.
We are talking not about a declining industry but about one that has a great future. It is an industry in which people have spent their lives. Families have fished for generations—in some cases for well over 100 years. Surely this Government will not be found wanting in these circumstances.
What action should the Government take? One course would be to tackle the source of the problem and impose import controls. It would not make sense to have a complete ban on imports, but one approach is to look at some of the imports that are causing the damage.
More appropriately, we should look at the possibility of a cash injection. The last Labour Government did not hesitate to take temporary action and make direct cash payments to the fishing industry when they were needed. Daily payments began on 1 January 1975. Daily payment for a vessel between 60 and 80 ft. was £20 a day. In the years since 1975, prices have doubled. At today's prices that represents a daily payment of £40.


For vessels between 80 and 110 ft. the payment should be £90 a day. That may be one way of helping to tackle this short-term problem, combining it with some sort of compensation for fishermen unable to make catches because they have exhausted their quotas or because they must comply with conservation measures.
Perhaps the Government will opt for the solution favoured by the industry, which is that they should offer support to enable withdrawal prices to be set at realistic levels that would provide adequate returns to the industry during this difficult period.
I do not expect the Minister of State to be able to outline detailed measures showing how the Government will tackle this short-term crisis. We know, after all, that the Government have only just received these proposals from the Scottish Fishing Federation. But it is absolutely crucial that we have a positive statement from the Minister this evening.
Let no one tell me that we cannot afford to support the fishing industry. Conservative Members have referred to the support for the British Steel Corporation and British Leyland. I make the point that sections of the inshore industry, particularly in the North of Scotland and the Shetlands, have been disadvantaged and have suffered to some extent because of the development of our important North Sea oil industry.
I remind the House that the revenues expected by the Government from North Sea oil in the next financial year will be in the region of £3,000 million. What is the fishing industry asking for? It asks for perhaps £3 million, or not much more. That money would support it during this temporary difficulty. Let us have no nonsense, therefore, about the Government not having the money to provide the cash injection needed by this vital industry.

Mr. Hicks: Before the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) gets too carried away about what his Government did, I remind him that the operating subsidy to which he referred—introduced by his Government in 1975—did not apply to smaller inshore vessels under 60 ft. in length.

Mr. Strang: I think the length the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) means is 40ft. I do not think that we want to go into that argument again, but I take his point.
We are talking about a desperate situation, and I have to say that the right hon. Gentleman in his opening speech did not seem to have grasped the urgent need for early and effective Government action. It causes me great concern to find that in tomorrow's edition of Fishing News the Minister is quoted as saying that:
any aid would be linked to a settlement of the Common Fisheries Policy which could be around June
Later the article states:
Mr Walker said that, when we have a CFP, the picture would be clearer about where aid should be given as some people would suffer more than others.
I hope that the Minister of State will utterly refute any suggestion that no aid is forthcoming for this hard-pressed industry untilwe have a settlement of the common fisheries policy. That is wholly unacceptable. Surely the hon. Gentleman must realise that if his strategy is that the money will be held back to provide some sort of sweetener to go with the settlement—which may not achieve everything that the fishing industry would like—he will not get away with it.
It is utterly unacceptable that there should not be an immediate response to the needs of this industry. By "immediate" I mean that we want an undertaking from the Minister of State that the Government will make an announcement before the end of the month about the special temporary measures that they intend to take in order to support this industry and prevent the bankruptcies that are imminent if immediate help is not given.
I turn to the long-term prospects for the industry. My right hon. Friend pointed out very effectively just how relentless and tragic has been the decline in our trawling fleet, formerly the best in the world. That decline is not the responsibility of this Government or of the last Government; it is partially a consequence of a reduction in the stocks that were available, but it is also a consequence of the fact that the British fishing industry has had the worst of all worlds.
We have not benefited from the extension of limits to 200 miles. We have been forced out of our traditional fishing grounds. We have lost out in the Norwegian and Icelandic waters. Membership of the Community has prevented our securing the advantages that the national extension of limits would have given to our industry. I am not getting involved in the arguments for and against our membership of the Community; I am simply stating that we have had the worst of all worlds.
The Minister said that the best thing that he could do would be to achieve a rational and effective common fisheries policy that did justice to the interests of our industry. We support him in that. It would be a tremendous achievement. Let us not forget that fish are no respecters of national territorial boundaries. It would be better to have effective conservation throughout the whole of the Community waters, not just in British waters. So we support the Minister's objective.
We have spelt out time and again the elements of a satisfactory settlement in the common fisheries negotiations. Above all, we must have a fair share of the fish for our own fishermen—a share that reflects our input into the Community waters and our losses in third country waters; a share that will rise as the stocks rise with the efficacy of conservation measures. We must have an exclusive 12-mile limit, a dominant preference in the 12 to 50-mile limit, and effective conservation measures.
The Minister was being a little optimistic in his reference to the catch reporting arrangements that had been agreed and will come into operation on a Community basis on 1 July. Catch quotas alone will not suffice. We must have an effective control of fishing effort. That, above all, means a national licensing system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr Silkin) pledged the fishing industry that in the course of 1979 he would implement a national licensing scheme. The leaders of the industry are prepared to accept it. Of course it will be restrictive and will involve some sacrifices, but an effective national licensing scheme, backed by a proper restructuring programme, is what the industry needs.
We must have a real approach to effective conservation in the Community. Every vessel operating in Community waters must have a licence, so that we can know whether the vessel is entitled to be where it is. That system must be linked to the Community's approach to fishing plans. Our fishermen have no respect for the catch reporting arrangements that have been agreed. There is evidence of the Germans fishing for cod off Greenland, where it is banned, and the French catching herring in our waters—herring that our fishermen are not able to catch. We cannot go on like this. There is no prospect of a common fisheries policy that will be effective and will have the support of the industry if this flouting of conservation measures continues.
I come back to the point with which I started. We want an effective common fisheries policy, but we shall not have an industry to take advantage of that settlement unless immediate measures are taken. We must have a clear-cut commitment tonight that an announcement will be made. We need effective action. This is a vital industry, which is part of our national heritage, and the Government must do their duty.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) in saying that we have had an extremely useful and wide-ranging debate. Almost 20 right hon. and hon. Members have spoken in the debate, and the House has had the opportunity to hear differing views from many parts of the United Kingdom.
The debate has been dominated by the current financial problems of the industry. I make no complaint that that should have been the theme of so many speeches.
It is necessary that with the difficulties that face the industry—and I would be the first to acknowledge those difficulties—it is incumbent on hon. Members not only to say in shorthand and sloganising words what they think the answer should be but to analyse more deeply what the problem is. Only if we analyse the problem can we be more sure of identifying the answers and ensure that those answers are effective at the end of the day.
The basic problem faced by the industry, which underlies nervousness and totally understandable anxiety, is fundamentally the deep uncertainty about its future. From where does that deep uncertainty stem? It stems from—I freely acknowledge it—worry of what will be the outcome of the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy.
In the short time available to me, I shall not go into the background of that. It is at the root of the industry's problems. It underlines first and foremost the necessity to seek a satisfactory settlement of the policy.
In dealing with the problems—I do not underestimate them—we must not let ourselves be mesmerised by the immediate problems and lose sight of the longer-term solutions that are needed if the industry is to succeed and prosper, not only for the present generation of fishermen but the future generations also.
I remind the House of the real basis of the debate, namely, the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy. We have had before us in the debate a large number of EEC documents for discussion. Although the debate has been dominated by the economic position, I was encouraged—by those who dealt with some of the documents—by the relatively minor criticism of the substance of the documents and of my right hon. Friend's explanation about the Government's attitude towards them.
Specifically, in the two documents of greatest relevance to us—total allowable catches and catch reporting—we have seen in the House a broad consensus of agreement on the line taken by the Government. There have been one or two reservations. I see that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is shaking his head. I shall return to him in a moment. We believe that it is essential to seek some movement on the common fisheries policy.
We supported the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) in the strong line that he took when he had unacceptable proposals put before him. He was right to do so. Not to seek a solution looks fine interms of a boxing or wrestling ring, but when applied to the future of an industry, of men's livelihood, surely

one has to find some solution and show some concern.
Some of the criticism that we have heard from the Opposition stems, I believe, from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. There is a certain grudgingness at the fact that we have managed to achieve, in the past nine months, from the Commission and our colleagues in Europe, some movement which the previous Government were not able to obtain. I do not overplay that. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) is muttering, and it is easy for him to do so. He has not taken part in the debate, but I do not criticise him for that. He should not interrupt from a sedentary position simply because he sees another party and another Government making progress where he failed.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Mr. Bruce Millan(Glasgow, Craigton) rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene from a sedentary position, that is up to him. I do not over-emphasise, over-stress or take too much credit for what we have achieved so far. All that we have done is to get some movement and better understanding of Britain's case and her fishing industry.
I do not understand how the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) thinks that we we can start to discuss quotas—which, I agree, are absolutely vital—unless we first discuss the total allowable catch upon which quotas will be based. I am afraid that that underlines some of the misapprehensions among Labour Members.
I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North will recognise that if we are to make progress we must start somewhere. It is at least better to start with those things on which there is agreement, such as scientific advice, and to that extent we have made considerable progress.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) specifically criticised the Common Market negotiations when he referred to third country agreements. I am afraid that I cannot take that from the right hon. Gentleman, because the level of that criticism to some extent demonstrates the grudgingness of the fact that


there is now some movement in relation to the common fisheries policy. For example, I know that the Canada agreement is not as much as we would have liked. It is not as much as the right hon. Gentleman would have liked. But, although the amount of fish that is made available to the United Kingdom is relatively small, we have doubled the proportion of fish of valuable species.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North knows, we have taken a particularly firm line with regard to the Faroes. I am sorry to say that our talks with the Faroese have broken down, precisely for the reason that was supported by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North—that we are not prepared to accept conditions in Faroese waters which make it impossible for the vessels from Aberdeen to fish. Here again, we are standing firm and there has been no sell-out, as suggested by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason).
Let us look at the case of Norway. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, because he skated over the subject and almost failed to mention it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) will acknowledge, if we did not have that agreement with Norway where would the Aberdeen fleet be fishing at present? Without that agreement, a major section of the Scottish fleet would be in great trouble.
The question of Spain in an important one. The right hon. Gentleman carefully forgot that the framework agreement was agreed by the Government of which he was a member. He also chose to forget that that framework agreement, which we have now signed, has two enormous advantages. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) acknowledged the problem which will arise if Spain joins the Community, because it will bring in an enormous fishing fleet. Frankly, we should at least start talking and prepare ourselves for what will happen. The right hon. Gentleman may not want to do so, but that would not be in the interest of our fishing industry.
We supported the right hon. Member for Deptford in what he negotiated in relation to Spain. But the right hon. Member for Barnsley seemed to forget the regressive nature of Spain's licences. As the agreement continues, the number of

licences granted to Spain will decrease. In that way, we ensure that if Spain enters the Community its opportunities to fish in our waters will be diminished in the years leading up to its entry.
The right hon. Gentleman tried to make a certain amount of fun in relation to smaller countries such as Senegal and Guinea-Bissau. That does not really wear when one looks at the merits of negotiations such as those. It is perfectly true that with regard to Senegal and Guinea-Bissau the agreements do not bring direct advantage to the British fishing industry. But it should be remembered that they give European countries the opportunity to fish in other waters, and it removes a certain number of vessels from the waters of Northern Europe which might otherwise fish there. We must not simply participate in political posturing. We must get the best possible deal in the longer term for the British fishing industry, and I hope that we shall do so with the support of the Opposition.
A considerable number of other topics were raised tonight. I should like to deal briefly with some of the problems which relate to conservation. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) mentioned salmon. That is an area, although it is not directly subject to the documents which we are discussing, where we believe that conservation is important. We are in discussion with the United States and Canadian Governments, and we hope that there will be EEC participation in the international convention that may result from those discussions. I support the hon. Member in what he said.
The right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) raised the question of enforcement. I agree that there should be effective enforcement. He mentioned the herring at Boulogne. We took the matter up with the French Government, and they undertook prosecutions which resulted in two convictions.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) raised the question of herring. That is an important matter. We must make certain—we saw what happened to the herring stock previously—that before we open our herring stocks again we not only have the first generation of new stocks of


herring but we also have one or two generations, so that the stock is capable of regenerating for the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) raised the question of mackerel. As he knows from the discussions that I have had with him, we have taken action through the restrictive licensing scheme which we are discussing with the industry to make sure that we conserve this important stock. I share my hon. Friend's concern over the question of recording. We have checked our figures. I am concerned about what has been said and reported about the statistics. We have checked the figures with the Customs and Excise. There has been a certain amount of error, about which I should like to write to my hon. Friend. We find that the Customs and Excise exaggerated—because of the conversion coefficient it used between fresh and processed mackerel. I turn to the economic situation in the industry. [Interruption.] Hon. Members show their lack of concern for the longer term. After crying out last week for a debate on EEC documents, they now show their lack of concern for the long-term interests of the industry.
It is important that we analyse the cause precisely. Imports are a factor, but there are many other factors, such as cost and demand. There is also the question of the needs of the processors. Imports are important, but equally we must be certain that we get an answer that is effective.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear earlier, we are ready to study the representations of the industry and to discuss what might be done.

Mr. Mason: Mr. Mason rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to wave a copy of Fishing News. I ask him to read on. He should read the rest of the interview. It relates specifically to the restructuring that might be necessary following the outcome of the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy. To take that out of context from a newspaper that is not due to be published until tomorrow is another example of the right hon. Gentleman's irresponsibility.
The industry has suggested a number of interesting and constructive proposals. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East acknowledged, some of the documents and representations were handed to us only this afternoon. We shall study them with the industry. I accept that there are problems of imports in relation to the GATT agreement negotiated by the previous Government. We cannot simply opt out of that.
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Community documents R/107/78, R/232/78, S/365/78, R/3012/78, R/3044/78, R/3045/78, 5877/79, 6276/79, 7348/79, 8392/79, 8608/79, 9912/79, 10285/79, 10966/79 and Add. 1, 11035/79, 11104/79, 11292/79, 409/80, and 4481/80, and supports the Government in its aim of securing an early and comprehensive settlement of the revised Common Fisheries Policy which adequately meets the needs of the United Kingdom Fishing Industry as a whole.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EUROPEAN COMMUNITY NON-QUOTA AID)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The House has just completed an overdue debate upon EEC documents which were recommended for debate by the Scrutiny Committee in advance of decisions being taken upon them by the Council of Ministers. Ironically, the matter I wish to raise is exactly the reverse. I wish to deal with matters which have been in agitation in the European Assembly and in the Commission but which have not yet reached the stage of formulation as regulations and which have, consequently, not been to the Scrutiny Committee or recommended by it for debate.
The paradox is not as severe as at first sight might appear. Hon. Members are probably coming to realise that, especially as the directly elected Assembly increases its effective powers and influence, Ministers are more and more caught


up in giving indications, and even in some degree commitments, in advance as to what they will or will not approve when eventually the matters emerge in the form of proposals put by the Commission to the Council of Ministers. It is such a subject that I wish to raise.
Non-quota aid—that is, regional aid over and above that governed by the quotas among the Nine—has assumed larger proportions and more importance in recent weeks. That is because of the change of position on the part of the Government on the £1,000 million net tribute which we are in course of paying to the EEC. The original notion, apparently, was that we should reduce the gross sum that we are required to pay out; but there has been a manifest change in recent weeks. The tack on which the Government are now sailing is that the EEC should increase the payments to be received by the United Kingdom, and that is where non-quota aid—additional projects for the payment of regional aid—is attracting increased interest.
That brings us to the subject of this evening's debate. I refer to the proposal by the Assembly's regional committee, which has now received the approval of the Assembly, for what are known as "cross-border" schemes of assistance to tourism and craft industries. The term "cross-border" is misleading. What is meant is schemes for expenditure on both sides of the international frontier for the promotion of tourism or craft industries. The proposal is that a payment for that purpose of £10 million should be made to the Irish Republic and of £5 million to the United Kingdom.
The first question to which I should like the Minister of State to address himself is that manifest disparity. These are indeed payments to the respective members of the EEC; but they are payments for the same purpose on either side of the international frontier—namely, tourism and craft industry schemes in areas adjacent to the international frontier. It is therefore impossible to see on what grounds twice as much can be allocated to one member of the EEC as to another when, after all, it is the same border viewed from opposite sides.
The Secretary of State, in correspondence with my right hon. Friend John

Taylor, the Ulster Unionist Member of the European Assembly, attempted to find some justification for it. In a letter of 28 January this year to Mr. Taylor, he said:
The Commission's financial proposal in respect of the border areas will give Northern Ireland parity with the Irish Republic on an overall per capita basis.
That is fairly obvious, because the sum proposed for the United Kingdom is half the sum proposed for the Republic, and the population of Northern Ireland is about half the population of the Irish Republic. Consequently, on a per capita basis, worked out over Northern Ireland on the one side and the Republic on the other, one does indeed get a fair approach to parity. But the comparison on that basis is nonsense. This is expenditure not for the benefit of the Republic as a whole or of Northern Ireland as a whole but on schemes for the border areas on both sides of the same border.
When the Secretary of State goes on to refer to aid for a completely separate project for shipbuilding, which is attracted by Belfast, as Belfast happens to be an important shipbuilding centre, and says that, if one adds that in, "Northern Ireland's share per head of the population will be higher than that of the Republic", that is an indication that the Government have found it impossible to justify the disparity of treatment between the two EEC members.
At this informal stage, before commitment has hardened much further, I should like the Minister of State to indicate that Her Majesty's Government will intimate and, when the time comes in the Council of Ministers, will insist that we have the self-evidently required parity on both sides of the frontier in these schemes. So much for the total amount.
Now I come to the respective areas on either side of the frontier in which that amount is to be spent. On the Republic side it is to be spent within any or all of the counties on the frontier. On the Northern Ireland side it is to be spent in the districts which abut on the frontier. That is a most extraordinary difference between the two cases.
As a Welshman, I find a certain perverse satisfaction in noting the dedication of the Irish Republic and of Irish


nationalists to the Tudor administrative divisions of the island of Ireland. Counties have some atavistic effect upon the Irish nationalist. So I quite understand why the Irish Republic thought the Tudor counties appropriate for delimiting the border areas on which these schemes should be based. But when we come to the Northern Ireland side, surely the same should apply. After all, there are similar counties there, arising out of the same Tudor division of the island, and the expenditure should presumably be applied to the frontier counties in Northern Ireland as it is to the frontier counties in the Republic.
It is true that in Northern Ireland the counties are no longer administrative units; but these schemes are not to be administered by the district councils in Northern Ireland: many of the craft industry schemes will be dealt with directly with individuals and firms.
There is, therefore, no justification for a different basis of geographical allocation on the two sides of the international frontier. There again, I want the Government to understand at this stage how unfair it would be seen to be by opinion in Northern Ireland if aid available in the Republic on a county basis were much more narrowly limited in Northern Ireland.
In case it be argued that, nevertheless, the counties, such as County Down, which abut upon the international frontier are concerned with tourism and with craft industries only in those districts which adjoin the frontier, I can assure the Minister of State that there is no foundation in that and that the promotion of tourism in particular requires that county areas as a whole should be taken into account in drawing up the schemes.
Those are, then, two defects in these proposals, coming forward from the Commission to the Council of Ministers, which preferably require to be remedied at an earlier stage; but in any case we require the commitment of the Government that in the Council of Ministers these two inequities will be removed.
There is one further subject which I wish to take the opportunity of raising. It is again germane to the new-found anxiety of the Government to find extra objects for EEC expenditure to outweigh

the deficit under which we at present labour. It is little more than six months since the new Government turned down flat the scheme for a gas pipeline linking the gas grid in Great Britain with customers in Northern Ireland. But in that six months there has been a considerable change in many respects, and the Government certainly ought now urgently to reconsider that decision.
I have already mentioned that the whole question of EEC assistance is now seen in a different light from six months ago. Here is a project of importance and of scope which is recommended by the regional committee of the European Assembly, which is commended warmly by the European Assembly itself for the consideration of the Commission, and on which the Commission expresses itself as anxious to receive from Her Majesty's Government proposals on the basis of which loans or grants could be considered between the Community and Her Majesty's Government.
The Commission was evidently impressed, and rightly so, by the study of the Northern Ireland Economic Council published in September last, which showed up the thinness of the reasoning on which the Government's rejection of the case for a gas pipeline had been based. I can assert—and it has been put almost in so many words by the European Assembly's regional committee—that there has as yet been no satisfactory comparison, certainly no published comparison, between the cost of a pipeline and the cost of discontinuance and replacement of the present supply and consumption of gas in Northern Ireland.
The rough estimate of £100 million for the pipeline was challenged effectively by the Economic Council—that ought to be reassessed—and a figure as high as £150 million has been put forward by the same source as an estimate of the total cost—not necessarily all cost to the public purse, but total economic cost—of discontinuing the use of gas in Northern Ireland.
This is a matter that needs to be reopened, and reopened urgently. After all, here is an irony. We have been told in Northern Ireland that we must face the complete discontinuance of a form of energy which in the rest of the United Kingdom is of great economic


importance. The European Economic Community, at the level of its Commission, at the level of the Assembly, at the level of its regional committee, says that this is a project which, on the face of it, is worthy of support, a project which Her Majesty's Government have only to raise for it to be eagerly considered by the Community from the point of view of aid both by way of loan and as part of the regional schemes of grant aid.
There could not be a subject more germane to the current concern of Her Majesty's Government in counterbalancing our deficit with the Community. I hope that the Minister of State will tonight indicate that the Government are not going pigheadedly to remain with the decision that they took in the first weeks of office in a very different climate from that which prevails today but will reapproach with an open mind a subject that is of fundamental economic importance to Northern Ireland and on which the wrong decision taken now will have fateful consequences for many years ahead.

Mrs. Elaine Pellet-Bowman: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing me to intervene very briefly. I have a particular interest in this matter because I have served on the regional committee of the European Parliament for the past five years. I am very anxious to see that the non-quota section is so fashioned as to help places such as Northern Ireland.
Although, as the right hon. Member said, there are, from our point of view, defects in the projects put forward—indeed, we tried hard in committee to alter them—nevertheless they are only a start and it is by no means an exhaustive list of what can and will be done with the non-quota fund.
During the committee stage of the regulation, we received a categorical assurance from the Commissioner, Mr. Giolitti, that he would consider in the next round both textiles and fishing, and we amended the original motion for a resolution to emphasise the need for including these sectors, both of which would benefit Northern Ireland incidentally and also North-West England.
Nor must we forget that the projects under consideration here today and in Strasbourg tomorrow take up considerably less than two-thirds of the money that was expected to be available under the first tranche—220 million units of account out of the 350 million units of account that it was assumed would be available on a "minimal forecast" for the first period.
Today, however, we have heard from Commissioner Tugendhat that the Commission is putting forward a much larger figure for the regional fund than that put forward in the Council's draft budget which was rejected in December—namely, 1,200 million units of account. Since the non-quota sector is 5 per cent. of the total, this means that if the enlarged regional fund is agreed, as I believe it will be, there will be a substantially large non-quota section from which Northern Ireland can indeed benefit.
Therefore, not only will there be 120 million units of account left over from the original estimate available for new sectors and projects—namely, textiles and fishing—but the whole sum will be substantially larger. As the EEC is genuinely anxious, as the right hon. Gentleman has said more than once, to increase United Kingdom receipts from the Community to offset our higher contributions, Northern Ireland should benefit considerably from the large non-quota sector. The harder the bargain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade manages to strike, the better those of us who serve in Europe will like it, and he can count on our most enthusiastic support.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for raising these matters and for providing the opportunity of discussing the benefits which Northern Ireland stands to gain from the non-quota section of the European regional development fund.
Northern Ireland, as a region, is an important beneficiary under the current non-quota proposals, and I should like to say immediately that the Government welcome the recognition of Northern Ireland's problems implicit in these proposals which once again demonstrate in


clear terms the EEC's acute awareness of how it may help.
Hon. Members will be aware that the non-quota proposals are based on article 13 of the regional fund regulation. This permits the fund to participate in two types of activity—first, measures which are linked with Community policies and which are intended to take special account of regional problems and, secondly, measures which are intended for areas affected by particularly serious occurrences such as natural disasters. In addition to these, the Council of Ministers has decided that under article 13 measures could be submitted which are designed to improve economic and social conditions in the most deserving frontier areas.
Accordingly, the Commission drew up five proposed measures and submitted them to the Council in October 1979. The United Kingdom stands to benefit from three of these proposals—first, those to assist areas adversely affected by the decline in the steel industry; secondly, those to assist areas adversely affected by the decline in the shipbuilding industry; and, thirdly, the measure to improve economic and social conditions on either side of the Irish border, to which the right hon. Gentleman made especial reference.
As the cross-border measure is based on what is essentially an interpretative gloss by the Council on article 13, the Commission has been constrained in its choice of areas that may benefit from this measure. That is partly by reason of the legal limitations upon the extent to which it is permissible to stretch the interpretation and partly by the need to take into account what other member States would view as acceptable under the terms of article 13.
The Commission is accordingly of the view that the areas to benefit should have clearly defined current administrative boundaries and should be contiguous with the border. We have therefore put forward the seven district council areas adjacent to the border—Londonderry, Strabane, Omagh, Fermanagh, Dungannon, Armagh and Newry and Mourne. The Commission considers—the matter was raised with it—that the old county boundaries which are no longer adminis-

trative entities in Northern Ireland would not have met the legal criteria.
I note from the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) that the European Parliament, of which she is a distinguished Member, is seeking to add a sixth or even a seventh proposal to the Commission's list, namely, one relating to textiles and the other to fisheries. Textiles are, of course, of great significance to Northern Ireland's economy. Manmade fibres in particular are suffering from a severe recession.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I apologise for intervening. I had not realised that the hon. Gentleman had moved on to a different subject. I trust that he will refer to the disparity in the total sums.

Mr. Rossi: Indeed.

Mr. Powell: I am sorry.

Mr. Rossi: I am dealing with the additional issue introduced by my hon. Friend before turning to the proposals and the financial implications.
I was saying that textiles—especially man-made fibres—are suffering from severe recession. The Northern Ireland Office is fully supporting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade in his endeavours in Europe to reduce unfair competition from imports from non-member States. I do not wish to say anything about possible further non-quota proposals, which might place in jeopardy the gains that we have made in the negotiations that are currently in hand. That applies also to some of the comments that the right hon. Gentleman has made. He sought assurances that we shall save this, that or the other in the negotiations. He will appreciate the difficulty of making a public statement from the Dispatch Box when negotiations are in hand. He is experienced in such matters.
I turn to the financial proposal that is on the table, as it were, in respect of border areas. The proposals allow an allocation of 8 million European units of account, or about £5 million, which is to be used mainly for tourism and artisan projects. The right hon. Gentleman made the point that the Irish Republic will receive double that amount. He


has also provided the answer. The cross-border measure, by itself, gives Northern Ireland parity with the Republic on a population proportion basis. That matter is taken into account. The Republic has double the population and receives double the allowance, although I know that the right hon. Gentleman would rather look at the question of the population within the districts on the border.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: That is what the aid is for—it is for border areas and not for the countries as a whole.

Mr. Rossi: The entire population is taken into account.
While I consider that the cross-border measure is of considerable potential benefit to the Province, it must be emphasised that it should be seen in conjunction with the non-quota proposal which will benefit the Belfast area. The amount which will be allocated to Belfast under the shipbuilding measure, in order to make the affected area more attractive and to provide alternative employment opportunities, has not yet been settled, but I can assure hon. Members that we will argue strongly Northern Ireland's case for a generous share of the money allocated to the United Kingdom.
Moreover—and this is good news for the right hon. Gentleman—I am happy to be able to say to the House that, at a meeting of officials held in Brussels at the end of last week, the other member States and the EEC authorities agreed that the non-quota shipbuilding measure should be extended to cover not just the Belfast city council area but the much larger Belfast urban area. The final decision remains to be taken by the Council of Ministers, but this extension would bring a further 200,000 people within the scope of the proposed measure and thus provide greater potential for the establishment of small and medium-sized enterprises which the measure envisages.
I am satisfied that, when taken together, the two measures from which Northern Ireland would benefit under the non-quota proposals represent an acceptable package of aid to the Province. However, I am anxious that it should be widely appreciated that the non-quota proposals put forward by the Commission envisage the application of only modest sums as compared with the overall bene-

fits which Northern Ireland receives from the EEC. As the House doubtless knows, only 5 per cent. of the total regional fund is allocated for non-quota measures. The £5 million for tourism and artisan projects in the border areas, plus the further sum which is not yet decided in respect of Belfast, is to be compared with commitments from the quota section of the fund, which in 1979 alone amounted to more than £27 million and which brought total commitments from the fund since 1975 to about £65 million. Indeed, even this latter figure itself is overshadowed by public expenditure in Northern Ireland, which in 1980–81 is expected to exceed £2,100 million. It is therefore clear that in non-quota terms we are speaking of relatively small amounts, although I would not wish in any way to underestimate their importance.
In passing, I should say that the total of £65 million committed to Northern Ireland from the quota section of the regional fund since 1975 represents about 16 per cent. of the United Kingdom allocation from the fund and is thus striking evidence that not only in the EEC but also within the United Kingdom the need for aid to Northern Ireland is clearly recognised.
Moreover, the projects which the fund has assisted also show a keen awareness of Northern Ireland's needs by the EEC. For example, in 1978 and 1979 the EEC gave a commitment amounting to some £7·5 million in respect of further developments at Aldergrove airport. What is more, the commitment was that the grant was made at a rate of 40 per cent., a level reserved for projects which are of particular importance to the development of the region in question.
I should have liked to mention the aid being given to the Northern Ireland electricity service, but the right hon. Gentleman is anxious that I should go immediately to the subject of the pipeline. I must make clear that the Government have always been aware that grants from the European regional development fund could be made available, and this fact was taken into account when the decision was announced last July. Before the Government could reasonably seek assistance at any level from the EEC towards the provision of a pipeline, they would have to be assured that such a pro-


ject would be viable financially. It is not possible to give an assurance that the pipeline would be viable financially, and, accordingly, it would not qualify for assistance from the EEC. I understand that it is simply a recommendation at the moment from the regional policy committee, which has passed the matter to the committee on rules and procedure in the

EEC. That committee has not yet considered the matter—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour. Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve o'clock.